Delhi

Article 370 Hearing in Supreme Court: Centre’s Arguments on J&K’s Special Status

Stay updated with the latest updates on the Article 370 hearing in the Supreme Court. Learn about the Centre's arguments regarding Jammu and Kashmir's special status and its historical context.

New Delhi | Updated: Aug 24, 2023, 16:30 IST

Related Stories
President Highlights Ram Mandir, Article 370, and Economic Reforms in Address to Parliament
Manipur viral videos: SC directs CBI not to record survivors’ statements as hearing coming up today
Balloon Bearing ‘Pakistan International Airlines’ Markings Found in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch
Supreme Court Article 370 Hearing: Federation’s Indestructibility Stressed by SG Mehta
Supreme Court Delays Hearing on Umar Khalid’s Bail Plea

The Supreme Court’s ongoing hearing of a series of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 has shed light on the historical context and significance of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. The provision, which bestowed distinct privileges upon the former state, has become a focal point of legal debate. The Centre’s representation, led by Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has brought forth crucial arguments pertaining to the constitutional intricacies surrounding Article 370. As the hearing enters its 10th day, the court continues to deliberate over the implications of this significant constitutional alteration.

Jammu and Kashmir: Not the Sole Princely State with a Constitution

The core contention of the central government’s argument lies in the assertion that Jammu and Kashmir was not the solitary princely state to possess a constitution during its earlier existence. This assertion aims to debunk the notion that J&K’s special status was a unique circumstance. The Centre highlights that the Constituent Assembly of J&K, once revered as a comprehensive document, was fundamentally a legislative act, devoid of plenary authority. The Solicitor General underscored the impossibility of coexisting dual constitutions within a single nation.

Unraveling the Chronology: Background and Abrogation

The roots of the legal discourse trace back to August 5, 2019, when the Centre took the momentous decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and reorganize it into two distinct union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, and BR Gavai, is steering the discussions and arguments. As of August 24, 2023, the court’s attention remains dedicated to the deliberation of intricate legal aspects surrounding Article 370.

Exploring Constitutional Sovereignty and Autonomy

One pivotal facet of the argument centers around the notion of internal sovereignty and autonomy. The Solicitor General challenged the petitioners’ interpretation, which juxtaposes internal sovereignty with autonomy. The distinction is critical, as the court scrutinizes the validity of the claim that the then Maharaja retained internal sovereignty even as external sovereignty transitioned to India. The significance of accepting the Indian Constitution’s supremacy over the Constituent Assembly of J&K emerges as a central point of contention.

Historical Context: Integration of Princely States

The hearing transcends legal intricacies to delve into historical precedent. The Centre emphasizes that the integration of princely states into the Indian federation, as outlined in Section 6 of the Order of 1947, aimed to create a cohesive nation while respecting individual states’ distinct terms and conditions. The argument traces how this integration process paved the way for Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, thereby fostering unity.

Insights into the Process of Accession

The Solicitor General delves into the dynamics of the process of accession, highlighting that 62 states, not just J&K, had their own Constitutions. This revelation seeks to debunk the perception that Jammu and Kashmir was uniquely positioned in British India with its constitution. The Centre’s representation sheds light on how various princely states acceded to the Union, elucidating the complex process of merging distinct entities into the newly formed nation.

Concluding Thoughts: Implications and Clarity

As the Supreme Court delves deep into the discussions surrounding Article 370, it faces the task of untangling the intricate threads of history, sovereignty, and constitutional intent. The court’s verdict has the potential to redefine the narrative surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. While the Centre’s arguments spotlight historical precedent and constitutional integration, the petitioners’ perspectives and the broader implications of abrogation remain under the judicial lens. The hearing’s outcome will undoubtedly shape the legal landscape and historical understanding of Article 370’s significance in India’s constitutional journey. Stay tuned for more updates as the hearing continues to unfold.


The ongoing Article 370 hearing in the Supreme Court holds immense significance as it unravels the layers of Jammu and Kashmir’s historical special status. The Centre’s arguments, put forth by Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, aim to provide clarity on constitutional intricacies and historical context. As the hearing progresses, the court’s deliberations will illuminate the complexities and implications of the abrogation, shaping the legal understanding of Article 370’s role in India’s constitutional evolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button