NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court constitution bench hearing pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 for the fifth day on Thursday observed that Jammu and Kashmir’s sovereignty was ceded completely to the Union of India. There are various shades of concurrence in the Constitution, but the imposition of fetters on Parliament’s legislative power did not dilute the dominion of India’s sovereignty over states, it said.
The five-judge bench led by Chief Justice CJI DY Chandrachud stressed that the inclusion of J&K in Article 1 of the Constitution meant that the “transfer of sovereignty” was complete. “Therefore we can’t read the post-Article 370 constitution as somehow a document that retains some elements of sovereignty in J&K. Our notions of parliamentary exclusion from states have been an evolving exercise, but one thing is clear, the sovereignty was ceded completely to the Union,” the bench said.
The remarks were made after the bench considered Senior Advocate Shah Zafar’s contention that J&K could be integrated completely only after the signing of the merger agreement and revocation of Article 370 as well as the Instrument of Accession. “There was no conditional surrender of sovereignty to the dominion of India. The surrender of sovereignty was absolutely complete. Only once the same was unquestionably and fully vested with the dominion of India can the restraints that would apply would be in the power of Parliament to enact legislation,” it said.
The court also termed the contention of Article 370 acquiring a permanent character as “dangerous”, It said the issue, which required adjudication, was related to the correctness of the methodology adopted.
Also in top court
‘Reintegration into society right of accused’
Considering the pleas challenging the remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that the reintegration of the accused into society is a constitutional right. “Reintegration of accused in society is a constitutional right. Remission is mentioned in Articles 161 & 72 and it is a statutory right,” a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked. The remarks were made by the bench after considering National Federation of Women’s counsel Nizam Pasha’s submission that entertaining remission requests is a part of an exercise of constitutional powers by the executive, not a right in itself.