New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, December 11, has ruled to uphold the reading down of Article 370.There are a few important implications on matters beyond Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh flowing from these judgments and pronouncements from a five-judge bench that unanimously upheld all government moves on August 5, 2019 and other acts that followed.1. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said that not every decision by the Union government can be challenged: “Every decision taken by Union on behalf of State during Presidential rule not open to challenge…this will lead to the administration of state to a standstill.”This, coming from the apex, constitutional court of India, has implications, especially if said as part of an order and while there is an executive with a ‘strong’ majority in place. It calls to question the power of every citizen, in principle, expecting the courts to be able to act as a check on the government of the day.Also read: As Supreme Court Rules on Article 370 in J&K, Here’s Why History, Legal Context Matters2. The court has held that it is not going into the question of whether parliament can convert a state into a union territory, and left this open. The reorganisation of Ladakh as a union territory was upheld as Article 3 allowed a portion of the state to be made as UT. The court said that it is doing so because the solicitor general has promised that statehood will be restored.A key question was if the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir can be done away with, with no state assembly being in place and the Union government arrogating to parliament the powers to decide on the region’s behalf and stripping down its status. This was a first in India and the apex court not going into it has implications on future attempts by this government or another in its place, embarking on drives to make fundamental changes to India’s federal structure, of which states are the central building blocks. Does this make Article 1 of the Constitution, that “India is a union of states”, up for challenge too, or render it an “open” proposition?3. The court directed the Election Commission of India to hold elections “by September 30, 2024”, which was interesting as it effectively meant directing an autonomous body (the Election Commission) which is meant to decide on when to hold polls independently. The call for elections was not a prayer in any of the petitions. In effect, it allows the postponing of polls to beyond even the time when the rest of the country is set to go to polls in a general election by spring next year.Jammu and Kashmir has not seen assembly elections in nearly a decade; the last time polls were held was in five phases between November-December 2014. It is also a setback to the Union government’s current favourite theme of ‘One Nation One Election’, or simultaneous polls in the country.Also read: Autocrats Have Learnt To Push Their Agenda While Retaining Paraphernalia of Democracy4. Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul in his epilogue has mooted a ‘truth and reconciliation committee’ for the union territory, a time-bound exercise to investigate and report on the violations of human rights by both State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation. Justice Kaul mentioned the South African commission for truth and reconciliation as a model and said it should be done to heal “inter-generational trauma” and “before memory escapes”.Could the rest of India look upon this as a model on key questions and divides which are wide open at a time of extreme polarisation? On caste atrocities and on restoring the idea of fraternity? The idea of having such commissions can sometimes be controversial and rake up wounds of the past at a time of a majoritarian sway in the polity, but this could also offer a way out of some intractable problems and help acknowledge societal divides. If nothing else, it may help frame the problem and underline a commitment to build bridges in a plural society.
