New Delhi: Opposition parties have raised questions about the future of federalism in the country after the Supreme Court in its verdict on Monday, December 11, upheld the abrogation of Article 370 through the constitutional order that read down the Article in Jammu and Kashmir.The court delivered its verdict after hearing the petitions challenging the Narendra Modi government’s move to bifurcate the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir state into two Union territories in August 2019 through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019.At a press conference in the national capital on Monday evening the Congress party said that it “respectfully disagreed” with the apex court’s order.“Prima facie, we respectfully disagree with the judgement on the manner in which Article 370 was abrogated,” said former Union home minister P. Chidambaram at the press conference.“We reiterate the CWC (Congress Working Committee) resolution in August 2019 that Article 370 deserved to be honoured until it was amended strictly in accordance with the constitution of India.”The party also said that it is “disappointed” that the court did not decide on the question of whether the parliament can convert a state into a Union territory.While the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 was one of the issues before the court, it did not rule on it in view of the submission by the solicitor general of India that the statehood of J&K will be restored as soon as possible, reported LiveLaw.The court, however, upheld the creation of the Union territory of Ladakh citing Article 3 of the constitution that allows a portion of a state to be made into a union territory.“We’re also disappointed that the honourable Supreme Court did not decide the question of dismembering the state and reducing its status to two Union territories,” said Chidambaram.Rajya Sabha MP and lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi who was also present at the press conference said that under Article 3 the whole state cannot be made into a Union territory.“There is a strange contradiction in this judgement about the issue of statehood,” he said.“Under Article 3 of the constitution, you can make a part of a state a union territory, or divide a state into two or three states. But there is a condition in Article 3 that some part of it should remain a state. You cannot make the whole state just a union territory.“The contradiction in this decision is that you have divided an entire state into two Union territories. And about one Union territory you have said that we are not deciding on the validity because we have been assured that full statehood will be restored as soon as possible. In the case of the other Union territory, it has been held that it is valid. So until a part of this whole territory is not a state, till then this cannot be valid under Article 3.“This is showing a big contradiction in this decision and a constitutional error in this judgement,” he said.Other opposition parties have also questioned the court’s refusal to rule on the validity of stripping the erstwhile state into two Union territories.The CPI(M), also a petitioner in the Supreme Court in the matter, issued a statement saying that the judgement is “disturbing and has serious consequences for the federal structure of our Constitution which is one of its fundamental features.”The statement of the party’s politburo expressed concerns that the verdict allows the Union government to unilaterally “initiate the formation of new states, alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states. This may well lead to a serious undermining of federalism and the rights of the elected state legislatures”It said that the verdict “has serious implications for the federal structure of our constitution and is inclined to strengthen a Unitary state structure in the name of ‘integration’ and by invoking ‘national security’.”AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi said that the “downgrading of the state to Union territory is a grand betrayal” to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and this will not stop the Union government from making other states into union territories.“Let us be clear that, in Bommai judgement, SC had said that federalism is part of the basic structure of the constitution. Federalism means that the state has its voice and in its area of competence, it has complete freedom to operate. How is it that Parliament can speak in place of the Assembly? How is it that Parliament can pass a resolution that was to be passed by the Assembly in the constitution? For me, the manner in which 370 was abrogated was a violation of constitutional morality. Even worse, the abrogation, bifurcation and downgrading of the state to union territory is a grand betrayal of the solemn promise that the Union of India had made to the people of Kashmir,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter).#Article370 1. In 2019, the CJI spoke at a seminar and said that “public deliberation will always be a threat to those who achieved power in its absence.” The question is whether you can abrogate the special status of a state by putting the whole state in curfew, while it is…— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) December 11, 2023 “I have said it once and I will say it again. Once this has been legitimised, there is nothing stopping the union govt from making Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad or Mumbai a Union Territory. Let’s look at the case of Ladakh, it is being ruled by Lt. Governor, with no democratic representation at all.”Parties like the Shiv Sena have welcomed the judgement but demanded that elections be held at the earliest.Speaking in the Rajya Sabha on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi said that her party “wholeheartedly welcomes” the apex court’s verdict and reminded Union home minister Amit Shah that while introducing the Bill in 2019, he had promised to restore peace and hold elections at the earliest.Wholeheartedly welcome the SC decision on Article 370. Now I hope with this decision, we would have elections announced for J&K immediately and ensure that democratic rights and voices of the citizens are heard.— Priyanka Chaturvedi🇮🇳 (@priyankac19) December 11, 2023In a post on X, she wrote that with the Supreme Court decision elections should be announced immediately “and ensure that democratic rights and voices of the citizens are heard.”The Congress too welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hold assembly elections by September 2024.“The Congress has always demanded the restoration of full statehood for what has become the Union territory of Jammu & Kashmir. We welcome the SC’s verdict in this regard. Full statehood must be restored immediately. The aspirations of the people of Ladakh must also be fulfilled. We welcome the SC’s direction to hold the assembly elections. However, we believe the elections should be held immediately,” said Chidambaram.The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which had welcomed the Union government’s move on Article 370 in 2019, has not reacted to the Supreme Court judgement on the Union territoriesHigh drama in Rajya SabhaMeanwhile, there was high drama in the Rajya Sabha after DMK MP Mohamed Abdullah during the discussion on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, cited Article 3 of the constitution and said that the abrogation of Article 370 “is an attack on federalism”.He also cited the 2019 Act that bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories as “unconstitutional” citing Article 3.Treasury benches then rose in protest and said that he is “nullifying” the order of the Supreme Court.Rajya Sabha chair and vice president Jagdeep Dhankar rebuked Abdullah for “speaking against the law of the land.”“Honourable member needs to be alive to the fact that in a historic judgement today the honourable Supreme Court has sustained what the Parliament has done,” said Dhankar.“And therefore to speak against the judgement, which is the law of the land, is not appropriate. Your assertion was 100 per cent to the contrary.”“All of us must keep in mind that when the judiciary has taken a view on a particular issue comprehensively, decisively, we need to abide by it,” Dhankhar said.Abdullah said that he had not gone into the judgement amid protests from the Treasury Benches.Congress MP K.C. Venugopal supported Abdullah’s right to have a different point of view.“Honourable court has given a judgement and we abide by it. We have a different point of view and he has a different point of view, but the member has the freedom to speak about it and criticise the judgement also.”Dhankar, however, said that the MPs’ “freedom of speech in the house is not unqualified.”“It does not give you licence to say whatever you feel. You have to be accountable. How can anyone talk against a judgement given by the highest court of the land? We can’t ridicule a judgement like this.”Modi hails ‘historic’ verdictThe verdict has been hailed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including by Prime Minister Modi who called the decision “historic” and a “resounding declaration of hope, progress and unity for our sisters and brothers in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.”Today's Supreme Court verdict on the abrogation of Article 370 is historic and constitutionally upholds the decision taken by the Parliament of India on 5th August 2019; it is a resounding declaration of hope, progress and unity for our sisters and brothers in Jammu, Kashmir and…— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) December 11, 2023“The verdict today is not just a legal judgment; it is a beacon of hope, a promise of a brighter future and a testament to our collective resolve to build a stronger, more united India,” he wrote on X.Home minister Amit Shah said in the Rajya Sabha that the apex court had accepted that Article 370 was a temporary provision. “If Article 370 was so fair, so needful, then why would Nehru ji use the word temporary in front of it? Those who say that Article 370 is permanent are insulting the intention of the Constituent Assembly and the constitution,” he said.
