Pragna Bharathi – Understanding S.C’s VERDICT ON ARTICLE 370

Pragna Talks – Pragna Bharathi – Understanding S.C’s VERDICT ON ARTICAL 370

Round table discussion on Supreme Court Judgment on Article 370
16th December 2023
Badruka College, kachiguda, Hyderabad

Pragna Bharati organized a Rround-table discussion on the SC’s 5-judge Constitutional Bench judgment on Article 370. PadmaSri Hanuman Chowdary, chairperson, Pragna Bharati, Sri Ramachandra Rao, ex-MLC and Sri Vivek Reddy, senior advocate Hyderabad High court led the discussions.

In his opening remarks Sri T. Hanuman Chowdhary, gave an overview of the circumstances in which Article 370 was imposed. Shyamaprasad Mukherjee,
Premnath Dogra of Praja Parishad – and Madhav Madhok are the main architects of Kashmir’s Integration and we must remember them with reverence. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26th October 1947, which is no different from the accession instruments signed by all other princely states. Kashmir’s Maharaja Hari Singh was sent out and deposed after he signed the Instrument of Accession.

Article 370 was an interpolation against the will of the people and the will of the Constituent Assembly. Dr Ambedkar too differed and didn’t agree with Article 370. Nehru pleaded and managed to get endorsement from the Congress party.

Sri TH Chowdary stated that he stands for a separation between Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu Hindus would be suffering in the combined state. In a ‘majority’ muslim state of J&K, no Hindu had become a Chief Minister. Whereas in Hindu majority states as well as in the nation, muslims rose to powerful positions like Home Minister etc

Pakistan was created by Hindu majority provinces, where 100% muslims voted for Muslim League. Gandhi fasted unto death saying Muslims shouldn’t be relocated to Pakistan, he wanted them to stay back in India, whereas millions of Hindus were displaced from Pakistan.

Importantly, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in his judgment recommended a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The T&R commission should also look into reclamation of temples, as the process of going to courts for each of the main temples demolished during the Muslim rule is tedious and takes decades. Similarly, the government proposed that along with the reserved constituencies of SC and ST, they would allocate two nominated positions for Kashmir Hindus. The Kashmir Hindus have been demanding that 3 constituencies should be reserved for them too.

The all India Hindu majority which used to be at 84% is now less than 79%. Even in the Northeast, there are many christian Majority states; though Arunachal Pradesh is at present a Buddhist majority state, it will become christian majority soon. Even in Andhra Pradesh, a christian majority district called ‘Ambedkar Amalapuram’ district was carved out.

Dr Ambedkar has written that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together as Muslims have a separate brotherhood, and he endorsed India’s partition. There are 85 ayaats in the Quran which ask its followers to kill or convert ‘kaafirs’.

Sri Ramachandra Rao, ex-MLC in his address stated that Govt of India was funding huge amounts of money to J&K. Several legal and administrative provisions which exist in India were never allowed in Jammu and Kashmir due to Article 370. He recounted the Kathua case of the bakrawalas, and the demographic changes within Jammu, to also make it a muslim majority, especially in the muslim contiguous areas adjoining the Kashmir valley. The temporary measure of Article 370 continued for seven long decades.

Many arguments came up before the Supreme Court on Article 370 adjudication hearings. Whether Article 370 was temporary or not, whether Article 367 could be used to alter Article 370, whether Presidential Order can be used to abrogate 370, whether parliament has the right to reorganize the boundaries of states – are the questions which came up before the court. Article 3 of the constitution gives powers to the govt to reorganize states. The petitioners went to Supreme Court on technical grounds and couldn’t establish any malafide intention in the abrogation of Article 370.

Sri Vivek Reddy, senior advocate, in his address stated that the Indian Constitution itself created an enclave within the country, by making an exemption, and a temporary provision called Article 370 was created. Whereas there are many areas where ‘special provisions’ are made. Unlike the US, which is a United States, where states have a separate constitution along with the federal constitution; in India, we opted for a strong Union – indestructible union with destructible states.

The provisions created for Jammu and Kashmir, are not compatible with the Constitution of India. J&K’s own Constituent Assembly was disbanded in 1957; the argument of petitioners was that – there is no constituent assembly for many decades, and even if it is equated with state legislative assembly, the state currently doesn’t have legislative assembly as it’s under governor’s rule, Article 370 can’t be abrogated, and therefore Article 370 infact becomes a permanent provision. The Supreme Court debunked and threw away all these arguments.

The petitioners argued that concurrence of the state legislative assembly must be taken, and hence Article 370 can’t be abrogated. However SC clarified that Parliament needs to only take an opinion/ consultation, and not concurrence. The opinion of the Legislative Assembly is not binding on the Parliament. For example, the Andhra Pradesh Assembly passed a resolution against the division of the state, but Parliament didn’t take it into account, it bifurcated the state.

The objective of the judgment was to dissolve the special status, and also correct the historical wrong committed 73 years ago.

The engaging Roundtable discussion was followed by a long question & answer session where all the members participated vigorously.