Investigating Article 370 abrogation in light of its legality and holding India’s Integrity

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Introduction

On August 5, 2019, under military control and widespread detentions of J&K's political leadership, a Presidential Order unexpectedly nullified Article 370, severing the state's unique autonomous status within the Indian Union. Three years later, with the legal landscape dramatically altered and most local leaders still imprisoned, the Supreme Court of India stands balanced to finally hear various challenges contesting the decisions surrounding that significant – and for many, controversial – day.

The intricate political dilemma of Kashmir ultimately necessitates a political resolution. However, the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy under Article 370 on August 5, 2019, presents a fundamental legal and constitutional challenge.

While the sudden abrogation of the special status may appear a sudden shock, it wasn't entirely unexpected. Since Article 370's inclusion in India's constitutional framework to facilitate the integration of the Maharaja's unique Instrument of Accession, successive governments have gradually eroded its provisions.

This erosion progressed to the point where, by December 4, 1964, then Home Minister Gulzari Lal Nanda boldly characterized Article 370 as a "tunnel" through which significant traffic had already passed, with more to come.

Background

The contentious division of the region led to the 1947–49 India-Pakistan conflict regarding the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. As a result, Pakistan gained control over one-third, while India obtained two-thirds of the territory. Subsequently, this disputed area has been at the center of multiple wars, armed conflicts, and tense situations.

India employed an asymmetrical federalism approach to govern its occasionally unsettled, the only Muslim-majority state of J&K. This region was granted distinct status through partial self-governance measures. Article 370 provided it with a constitution and legislative power, excluding foreign affairs, defense, and communication. Additionally, Article 35A bestowed specific privileges upon permanent resident Kashmiris, such as employment and property rights. However, over time, New Delhi steadily diminished this autonomy by integrating the state through constitutional amendments, enforcing national laws within the region, and consistent political oversight.

Insurgency outbreak after the manipulated state elections in 1987 and 3 decade long conflicts.

The Kashmir Valley witnessed an insurgency outbreak after the manipulated state elections in 1987. Subsequently, a three-decade-long conflict ensued, marked by a blend of insurgency, Indian state tactics, external involvement, and an internationally supportive environment, leading to different phases of escalating violence. The initial phase, spanning from 1989 to 2002, experienced heightened violence levels and significant displacement of people. Throughout this period, the dominant militant organization shifted from the secular nationalist Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front to the Islamist nationalist Hizbul Mujahideen, and eventually to the more radical Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, all garnering increased backing from Pakistan. These factions engaged in confrontations with a largely indiscriminate and high-intensity Indian attrition campaign. In the aftermath of nuclear developments and the post-9/11 era in South Asia, the subsequent phase of the conflict, from 2003 to 2012, witnessed a gradual decline in violence, eventually reaching an unprecedented low point.

Under global scrutiny and reduced backing from Pakistan, militant groups weakened. This period saw the initiation of an India-Pakistan conflict resolution process. Indian intelligence and border control strengthened, while there were nominal enhancements in governance and granting voting rights. Despite the reduction in violence and the restoration of democratic processes, the sense of isolation among Kashmiri Muslims persisted due to intense surveillance, limitations on freedoms, prioritizing counterterrorism over empowering the populace, the continued impunity of security forces regarding human rights abuses, and a lack of political resolve to address the Kashmir issue.

These grievances, coupled with limited external backing, sparked a surge of widespread opposition in the latest stage of the insurgency characterized by a resurgence of large-scale protests, insurgent attacks, and casualties between 2013 and the reorganization in August 2019.

The opposition to the government manifested in various ways. In addition to orchestrated insurgent violence carried out by resurging militant factions, the widespread resistance also involved strikes, closures, and confrontations that were unarmed yet provocative and violent. In response, there was a more assertive and active Indian approach, adopting tougher stances towards Kashmiri separatists and Pakistan, and direct involvement in regional politics.

The Period of Aggression

After a consistent decrease in violence until 2012, certain experienced analysts, like former Intelligence Bureau Director A. S. Dulat, cautioned that "the apparent peace is misleading." Concurrently, the confident portrayal by New Delhi that Kashmir was heading back to "normality" started to disintegrate from 2013 to 2019. This was most evident during the succession of widespread uprisings in the summer of 2016 triggered by the death of militant leader Burhan Wani.

This third phase of the conflict was characterized not only by violence gradually resurfacing from its lowest point in 2012, there was also by a rise in inventive, widespread quasi-violent methods involving significant public participation. Additionally, there was a growth in localized and diverse militant activities, coupled with ineffective state political and counterterrorism strategies. Even though armed rebellion and levels of violence had drastically decreased from their peak in the early 2000s, the contemporary anti-government mass movement seemed more potent and politically unsettling in certain aspects. The government's extraordinary actions in August 2019 might have been a response to the alarming realization of the rapidly deteriorating security situation.

Timeline of important events in the evolution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India

26th October, 1947

This historical event was when Maharaja Hari Singh, the last ruler of Jammu and Kashmir territory formally agreed for the region to become a part of the Dominion of India by signing the Instrument of Accession on October 26th, 1947. Through this agreement, the Maharaja surrendered authority over certain matters to the Indian Parliament while retaining control over others. Specifically, he allowed the Parliament of India to govern mainly three subjects while limiting the Union's power to manage Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications in the region.

The Instrument of Accession was a legal document through which princely states in India could join either India or Pakistan following India's independence from British rule in 1947. By signing this document, Maharaja Hari Singh initiated the process of integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Dominion of India, with certain specified conditions that outlined the extent of the Union's authority in the region.

January 26th, 1950

The Indian Constitution was enforced on January 26, 1950. Article 370 outlined three main principles. Essentially, it specified that India wouldn't enact laws in Jammu & Kashmir beyond what was outlined in the Instrument of Accession without the 'consent' of its government. Additionally, it clarified that except for Article 1, which designated India as a 'Union of States', and Article 370 itself, no other part of the Constitution would apply to Jammu & Kashmir. The President of India had the authority to apply any provisions of the Constitution to this region with 'alterations' or 'exceptions', but only after 'consulting with the State Government'. Lastly, Article 370 couldn't be modified or annulled unless the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir agreed to it.

The year 1950

On January 26, the President of India, Rajendra Prasad, issued the inaugural directive, known as the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950, under Article 370. This order delineated the specific range and complete authority granted to Parliament concerning its jurisdiction in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the Instrument of Accession, the Union was responsible for governing the external affairs, communications, and defense of the State. The President's order precisely outlined the subjects falling under these domains. Additionally, the Order introduced Schedule II, enumerating the modified provisions of the Constitution applicable to the State.

31st October, 1951

Article 370 in the 1950 Indian Constitution recognized Jammu and Kashmir's unique constitutional status, allowing it to create its own State Constitution. In the late 1950s, Sheikh Abdullah, the interim Prime Minister of J&K, corresponded with Jawaharlal Nehru and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar to establish a Constituent Assembly for J&K.

These exchanges anticipated crucial matters that the J&K Assembly had to address, such as the State's relationship with India and the constitutional position of J&K's ruler. These discussions mirror the conversations among the Cabinet Mission, Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, and Indian political leaders before the Indian Constituent Assembly.

On October 27, 1950, Sheikh Abdullah's party, the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, passed a resolution urging the Indian Government to convene a Constituent Assembly through universal suffrage. Subsequently, elections held in August-September 1951, embracing adult voting rights, led to the National Conference winning all 75 seats in a landslide victory.

Seventy-five individuals gathered at the Constituent Assembly Chambers in Srinagar on October 31, 1951. In his introductory address, Sheikh Abdullah, to the relief of Indian political leaders, declared that Kashmir would align with India but under its conditions. This declaration held immense political significance. Despite Kashmir already being part of the Union, the confirmation of this alignment by the Constituent Assembly was crucial. Sheikh Abdullah candidly acknowledged the central issue in the Assembly and expressed his preference clearly.

The J&K Constituent Assembly largely followed procedures akin to those of the Indian Constituent Assembly. Small groups of Assembly members were formed into Committees assigned to develop preliminary drafts on specific topics. Some of these included the Committees on Rules of Procedure, the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, and the Basic Principles Committee. The reports produced by these Committees, containing preliminary drafts, were presented to the full Assembly for discussion and potential modifications. The Assembly would then either adopt or dismiss the Article through a vote.

Year 1952

The creation of the Delhi Agreement in 1952 marked an accord between the Indian Government and Jammu and Kashmir's Government. This agreement primarily focused on the residual authority (Article 248) wielded by Parliament, falling beyond the jurisdiction of State or Concurrent Lists. It specified that these powers would be entrusted to the Jammu and Kashmir Government, unlike in other states where the Union Parliament typically holds such residual powers. Additionally, the Delhi Agreement extended certain aspects of the Indian Constitution to the state, including fundamental rights, citizenship, trade and commerce, Union elections, and legislative authority.

Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah, addressing the Constituent Assembly, emphasized that while the Centre retains residual powers for all states except Jammu and Kashmir, in their state, these powers are vested within the state itself. This alignment complies with Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the Instrument of Accession upon which the Article is founded. Their stance emphasizes that the people hold the ultimate source of sovereignty, and hence, all powers emanate from them. For further insights, refer to the debates in the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir by clicking the link provided.

14th May 1954

The President enacted the Constitutional Decree of 1954, which Enforced the Delhi agreement. President Rajendra Prasad, on May 14th, 1954, authorized the Presidential decree to execute the provisions settled in the Delhi accord of 1952 within the Indian Constitution. This decree ensured the territorial wholeness of Jammu and Kashmir and introduced Article 35A, granting distinct privileges to permanent inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir. The decree received approval from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.

26th January 1957

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was put into effect on January 26th, 1957, following a five-year process. It included a statement affirming that 'The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and will remain an essential part of the Union of India'. On January 25th, 1957, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, having fulfilled its purpose, disbanded at noon under the leadership of Hon’ble Gulam Mohammed Sadiq, who declared the session's closure and the Assembly's dissolution as a historic moment. Despite its conclusion, the Constituent Assembly did not explicitly propose any alterations to Article 370.

Year 1972

The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 370, the President has the authority to modify the interpretation of specific terms. In the Maqbool Damnoo v State of Jammu & Kashmir case, the President altered the meaning of 'Sadar-i-Riyasat' to 'Governor' by issuing an Order to amend Article 367, which pertains to the interpretation clause of the Constitution. Despite the petitioners' argument that the Order lacked the 'recommendation' of the dissolved Constituent Assembly, the Supreme Court validated the Presidential Orders. The Court considered this amendment as a clarification, given that the office of 'Sadar-i-Riyasat' was no longer in existence. Consequently, the Court held that the Governor could now assume all the powers previously held by the 'Sadar-i-Riyasat'.

Year 2016 and the modern period

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of State Bank of India v Santosh Gupta that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, a Union government law, was valid despite a challenge. The petitioners argued that this Act conflicted with the Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act of 1920 which was specific to Jammu and Kashmir. The Court affirmed the legality of the Union’s legislation. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that Article 370 did not have a specified end date. It clarified that this provision would persist until a recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was put forth for its cessation. This judgment emphasized the importance of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir's consent or agreement in revoking Article 370.

20th June 2018

The enforcement of the Governor’s authority in Jammu and Kashmir happened due to a political collapse when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) revoked its backing from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). According to Article 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor’s authority cannot exceed six months. Thus, the Governor’s control concluded on December 19th, 2018.

President Ram Nath Kovind declared President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir on December 19th, 2018, invoking Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. This decision followed the earlier implementation of the Governor’s Rule in June 2018. Both houses of Parliament endorsed this proclamation in December 2018 and January 2019. The proclamation substituted the Legislative Assembly and Governor with the Union Parliament and the President.

3rd July 2019

Proposed Motion for the Parliament Session in July 2019 it was considered that the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir as outlined in the report by the region's Governor, the Union Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had sanctioned the continuation of Federal Governance in Jammu and Kashmir for an additional six months, starting from July 3rd, 2019, under article 356(4) of the Indian Constitution. The significance of it was that this decision signifies the extension of Federal Governance in Jammu and Kashmir for another six months commencing from July 3rd, 2019. The existing term of Federal Governance is set to conclude on July 2nd, 2019, and the Governor has proposed extending the same for an additional six months starting from July 3rd, 2019. It was implemented based on a resolution requesting parliament's consent for this extension will be presented in both houses during the upcoming session.

5th August 2019

The President, in Maqbool Damnoo, issued Order C.O. 272, altering the definition of 'Constituent Assembly' to 'Legislative Assembly' within Article 370(3) by modifying Article 367—the interpretation clause. This change implied that any presidential decree would require the 'legislative assembly's approval. Since Jammu and Kashmir was under the President's Rule, Parliament fulfilled the necessity for the 'legislative assembly's consent. It's noteworthy that the Constituent Assembly had ceased to exist for more than 60 years, and with the imposition of the Governor's rule (June 2018) and subsequent President's rule (December 2019), there was no operational 'legislative assembly'. The Presidential order came a month after extending the President's rule for an additional six months (July 2019). Additionally, the Rajya Sabha adopted a statutory resolution recommending the revocation of Article 370 and the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

The legality of the Presidential Order is Directed to a 5-judge Panel on August 28th, 2019

A 3-Judge Panel headed by ex-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, accompanied by ex-Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice Abdul Nazeer, began deliberations on the Legitimacy of the Order. After two days of discussions, the Panel found it necessary to pass on the issue to a Constitutional Panel for deeper examination. Click below to access a copy of the referral directive.

Article 370 recent judgment of the Supreme Court simplified

In Jammu and Kashmir, there was no preservation of complete independence.

CJI Chandrachud heavily relied on a declaration made by Yuvraj Karan Singh on 25th November 1949, a day before India adopted its Constitution. This proclamation indicated that the regulations outlined in the Indian Constitution would govern the relationship between J&K and India. According to the Chief Justice, this declaration contradicted two clauses of the Instrument of Accession (IoA). Paragraph 7 of the IoA explicitly stated that it didn't signify acceptance of "any future Constitution of India," while Paragraph 8 highlighted that the IoA wouldn't impact the sovereignty of the Maharaja.

The Yuvraj's statement affirmed that "the regulations of the mentioned Constitution shall, starting from its commencement date, override and abolish any other conflicting constitutional provisions presently in effect in this State."

Moreover, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that Article 370 and the J&K Constitution provided substantial evidence that a formal merger agreement wasn't required for Kashmir to relinquish its sovereignty. Article 370(1) integrated Article 1 of the Constitution (listing J&K as a Part III State) without alterations. Section 3 of the J&K Constitution explicitly declared that "the State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India." Section 147 barred any modifications to Section 3, solidifying its absolute nature. Consequently, the Constitution of India became the "supreme governing document of the land." Additionally, the J&K Constitution's Preamble lacked any mention of sovereignty.

The Chief Justice also dismissed the petitioners' argument that J&K's autonomy differed significantly from other states. While asymmetric federalism may grant one state a higher degree of autonomy than another, it doesn't imply a distinct form of autonomy. He cautioned that acknowledging an elevated form of sovereignty for J&K would suggest that "other states with special arrangements with the Union also possessed sovereignty."

Justice Kaul disagreed regarding the matter of sovereignty. Referring to the Court's decision in Prem Nath Kaul v Union of India (1959), he believed that J&K had retained a portion of its sovereignty. According to him, Article 370 recognized J&K's internal sovereignty by acknowledging the state's Constituent Assembly.

Article 370 is a provisional measure

Initially, the Chief Justice were sure of the fact that the framers of the Constitution positioned Article 370 among the provisional and transitional provisions found in Part XXI. Additionally, he highlighted that the IoA distinctly clarified that Article 1, affirming "India that is Bharat shall be a Union of States," completely applied to J&K. On the adoption of the Constitution on 26th January 1950, J&K was categorized as a Part B State. CJI Chandrachud observed that the introduction of the Seventh Schedule eradicated the differentiation between Part A, B, and C states, solidifying J&K's position as an integral part of India.

The petitioners contended that Article 370's temporariness persisted only as long as the Constituent Assembly of J&K existed. As the assembly members chose to retain the provision, it transformed into a permanent one, given that the only body capable of revoking it had disbanded. However, CJI Chandrachud argued that the phrase "recommendation of the Constituent Assembly…shall be necessary" , should be interpreted within its historical context, portraying it as a "ratification process as decided by the Ministry of States." He emphasized that this recommendation wasn't binding on the President.

Moreover, the Chief Justice clarified that the provision was introduced to address the "special circumstances in the State." At the time of the Constituent Assembly's dissolution, these unique conditions persisted, necessitating the continuation of Article 370.

CJI Chandrachud also maintained that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly couldn't restrict the President's authority to revoke Article 370. He explained that the President's authority was only restricted under Article 370(1), which meant they couldn't "make significant alterations to the provisions of the Constitution of India concerning Jammu and Kashmir." If the President exercises power under 370(3) to annul the provision, no such constraint under 370(1) would endure, and all constitutional provisions would be applicable to J&K, ensuring complete integration. "Stating that the power under Article 370(3) cannot be utilized post the Constituent Assembly's dissolution would result in hindering the integration, contradicting the provision's intended purpose," wrote CJI Chandrachud.

Justice Kaul concurred, citing that "Article 370's historical context, its wording, and its subsequent practice" indicated its temporary character. The President's authority could be exercised after the dissolution "in alignment to fully integrate the State," he asserted.

Validity of Presidential Declarations during President's Rule

CJI Chandrachud initially clarified that the Court wouldn't address the President's authority to invoke President's Rule under Article 356, as the main issue focused on "actions conducted while President's Rule was in effect, not specifically on President's Rule itself." He then addressed the petitioners' argument asserting that the President cannot utilize their powers under Article 356 to make "irreversible decisions" and disturb constitutional protections in favor of States.

Firstly, the Chief Justice referred to Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy’s ruling in S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994), where it was established that when the President's Rule is imposed, it becomes "inevitable" that the government is removed to prevent simultaneous governance by both Union and state governments. This leads to a "weakening of the federal structure" as the Union gains authority over the executive and legislative powers of the State. Considering the intent behind Article 356, which aims to "restore the functioning of the constitutional machinery in the state," actions taken by the President during the proclamation should be aligned with achieving this objective. CJI Chandrachud mentioned that "it would be overly strict to suggest that every action by the President and Parliament must be essential to further the goals of the proclamation."

Additionally, the Chief emphasized that there are numerous decisions that the President and Parliament must undertake on behalf of the state legislature to ensure effective day-to-day operations in the state. Not every such action, he argued, should be subject to judicial review, as it would result in “disorder and uncertainty” and “halt the administration in the State.”

He clarified that any action taken under this authority could be repealed or altered by the state legislature once it resumes functioning. According to Article 357(2), "regional units have the authority to reverse or amend the changes made by the Union during the proclamation."

Asserting that judicial review applies only to actions taken after the proclamation of the President's Rule, the Chief Justice established criteria to evaluate grounds for such review. Firstly, the "exercise of power by the President under Article 356 must reasonably relate to the objective of the Proclamation." Secondly, an exercise of power won't be deemed invalid "solely due to the 'irreversibility' of the actions." Thirdly, in challenging an action taken under the President's Rule, the burden lies on the petitioners to demonstrate that a preliminary assessment of the case shows "mala fide or unrelated exercise of power."

If a case of mala fide conduct is established in a preliminary assessment, the responsibility then shifts to the Union to prove a reasonable connection between the action taken and the purpose of declaring the President's Rule. Lastly, the President's exercise of power for day-to-day state administration is "generally not subject to judicial review."

Does Parliament possess both legislative and non-legislative authority of the state legislature during President's Rule?

Article 356(1)(a) stipulates that the President can announce that the “powers of the Legislature of the State” shall be utilized by or under Parliament's authority. Petitioners contended that there exists a distinction between the “law-making and non-law-making powers” of the state legislature, asserting that only legislative, not constituent power, is transferred to Parliament during the President's Rule.

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed such differentiation under Article 356. He highlighted that construing the phrase “powers of the legislature” , to grant Parliament the ability to exercise all constitutional powers of the Legislative Assembly would restrict the state's authority. However, he added, “the Constitution acknowledges such curtailment of federal authority when the Proclamation under Article 356 is enforced.”

Is the validity of Constitutional Order 272 of 2019 in question?

Firstly, the Chief Justice examined the legitimacy of the process through which Article 370 was revoked. The Union annulled this provision through two Constitutional Orders (COs), namely CO 272 and 273.

Under CO 272, the Union altered Article 367, an interpretative clause, by substituting the phrase "Constituent Assembly" in the proviso to Article 370(3) with "Legislative Assembly." The Union contended that this method aligned with the validity outlined in Article 370(1)(d), which permits the application of Indian Constitutional provisions to Jammu and Kashmir, subject to exceptions and modifications by the President.

The Chief Justice, however, deemed this action invalid and unconstitutional for two primary reasons. Firstly, an amendment to Article 370 could only occur following the process stipulated in Article 370(3) and not through an amendment to an interpretative clause of the Constitution. Secondly, the "concurrence" of the state government was deemed a necessary component under Article 370(1)(d).

Previously, in the Maqbool Damnoo v State of Jammu & Kashmir case (1972), a similar approach was undertaken by the Union to replace "Sadar-i-Riyaasat" in Article 370 with "Governor" by amending Article 367. The majority opinion at that time was that this alteration didn't constitute an amendment to Article 370 but rather served as a clarification reflecting the existing state of affairs. Similarly, in certain other instances where changes were made to Article 370 via the Article 367 route, these changes did not significantly modify the essence of the Article. Hence, the Union's reliance on these examples to support the validity of CO 272 was rejected.

Clarification on CO 272 by the Court

Regarding CO 272, the Court clarified that "while the change sought to be made by paragraph 2 of CO 272 may appear to be a modification or amendment of Article 367 at first glance, its actual effect is to amend Article 370 itself."

However, the Chief Justice further clarified that this did not automatically render CO 272 entirely unconstitutional. This was because the President possessed the authority under Article 370(1)(d) to apply "all or part of the Constitution" to Jammu and Kashmir. Petitioners argued that 370(1)(d) only allowed a piecemeal approach and that the entire Constitution could only be applied by employing the power under Article 370(3), which involves the abrogation of Article 370. The Court held that applying all the provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir under 370(1)(d) had the same effect as declaring that Article 370 ceases to exist through the power vested in 370(3).

What are the responses to this ruling?

Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the judgment as identifying the judgment as a guiding light, a commitment to a brighter tomorrow, and evidence of our shared determination to construct a more resilient, cohesive India. He also, elaborated that In its deep insight, the court has strengthened the very core of harmony that we, as Indians, deeply value and cherish above all.

Opponents of his government's 2019 action argued that only the Constituent Assembly of Indian-administered Kashmir had the authority to determine the special status of the area and questioned whether the Indian Parliament had the authority to annul it.

“Disappointed yet undeterred,” Omar Abdullah, a former chief minister and vice president of the Jammu & Kashmir National Conference party expressed his opinion. As opined by him, “The fight will persist. It took the BJP decades to reach this point. We are also geared up for the long journey ahead.”

Conclusion

When contemplating the legal dimensions of Article 370 revocation, it's pivotal to ponder the wider consequences for the populace of Jammu and Kashmir. Now, the emphasis should move towards comprehensive progress, safeguarding rights, and nurturing a feeling of togetherness among all residents.

Justice Kaul's "concluding statement" advocates for establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir, similar to the model adopted in South Africa, aiming to mend historical wounds. While Justice Kaul stressed the need for an autonomous and unbiased entity, devoid of a punitive role resembling a criminal court, the responsibility for this matter was deferred to the Central authority, potentially driven by majority influences. Whether the present administration can objectively evaluate the past, transcending regional and religious divisions, remains a pertinent political query that might not have been the Court's focus. Nevertheless, the Court addressing the extensive history of severe human rights violations in the region, extending beyond the Kashmiri Pandits, is undeniably a positive development.

To sum up, the removal of Article 370 marks a fresh phase in India's legal and political narrative. Despite varying viewpoints, engaging in a considerate and knowledgeable dialogue is crucial to grasp the intricacies and subtleties of this significant choice.

. . .

References:

Discus