No 'Constitutional Fraud' In Abrogating Article 370: Centre Tells SC. Top Court Asks To Justify Procedure

Centre told the Supreme Court that there was no "constitutional fraud" in abrogation of Article 370. The apex court said the Centre will have to eventually explain the procedure adopted for abrogation

Supreme Court asks Centre to inform about the procedure adopted for abrogation of Article 370

Source : Getty Images

No “constitutional fraud” took place in the abrogation of Article 370 that accorded special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, asserted the Centre as its top lawyers commenced their arguments in support of scrapping Article 370 in the Supreme Court. The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud which presided over the case asked the Centre to justify the procedure adopted for abrogation, reported news agency PTI. Court cannot postulate a situation "where the ends justify the means,” said the apex court. 

The petitioners against the repeal of Article 370 have argued that the provision could not have been abrogated, as the term of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly, whose concurrence was required before taking such a step ended in 1957, after it had drafted the erstwhile state's Constitution. 

After the constituent assembly became extinct, Article 370 acquired a permanent status, they have said.

Responding to Attorney General R Venkataramani’s argument stating it was necessary to abrogate Article 370, the CJI observed, "We cannot postulate a situation where ends justify the means. The means have to be consistent with the ends." 

There was no constitutional fraud, as alleged, Venkatramani told the bench — also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant — opening arguments for the Centre. 

The CJI told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that eventually he will have to explain as to how the word “constituent assembly” which existed in the clause 2 of Article 370 was replaced with the word "legislative assembly" on August 5, 2019, the day when the special status was revoked. 

"You will have to argue how it was not a constituent assembly but a legislative assembly in its original form. You will have to answer how it will square up with clause 2 of Article 370 which specifically says the constituent assembly formed for the purpose of framing the constitution of that state....because, there is a textual answer which may militate against your line of approach," CJI Chandrachud told the solicitor general.

In response, Mehta said he will try to satisfy the conscience of the court and will explain the procedure adopted and how it was constitutionally permissible, the report added. 

"You will have to argue how it was not a constituent assembly but a legislative assembly in its original form. You will have to answer how it will square up with clause 2 of Article 370 which specifically says the constituent assembly formed for the purpose of framing the constitution of that state....because, there is a textual answer which may militate against your line of approach," CJI Chandrachud told Mehta.

CJI Chandrachud also asked the Centre to provide a list of states out of 562 princely states which merged with India without signing any merger agreement besides original papers existing with the Department of State under the Ministry of Home Affairs.