Article 370 Case | Ends Can't Justify Means, Supreme Court Tells Union On Hearing Day 10

On the tenth day of the Supreme Court hearings in the Article 370 matter, the Central Government commenced its arguments supporting the Presidential Orders of 2019 which diluted Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The arguments were opened by Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant. At the very outset, the CJI posed an interesting query to the Union and asked if the ends could justify the means. He orally remarked that, "means should also be consistent with the ends".Limb Can be Amputated To Save A Life But Life Is Never Given To Save A Limb: AG Opens His ArgumentsThe Attorney General's opening statements emphasized the government's approach of combining understanding, objectivity, and neutrality while addressing this issue. "We have tried to bring our own understanding of this emotion, passion-riddled issue. We have kept in mind the objectivity and neutrality required," remarked the AG as he put his arguments before the bench. He went on to invoke the words of Abraham Lincoln to illustrate his point. "Abraham Lincoln talked about balancing - losing the nation and preserving the constitution. He said that by general law, life and limb must be protected. But a limb can be amputated to save a life, whereas a life is never given to save a limb," the AG stated.However, addressing the AG's submission, the CJI questioned the principle of ends justifying means. "Mr. AG, we cannot postulate a situation where the ends justify the means also, right? Means should also be consistent with the ends," the Chief Justice emphasized, underlining the importance of lawful approaches in achieving desired outcomes.Both the AG and later, the Solicitor General (SG) underscored their stance that the methods and procedures employed in the abrogation of Article 370 were conducted within the boundaries of the constitution. "No deviation has taken place with regard to this Presidential proclamation. To say that a fraud has been committed on the Constitution is incorrect," asserted the AG. The AG further argued that on the combined reading of Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the proclamation of the Maharaja of J&K, followed by adoption of 370, all traces of sovereignty of J&K were surrendered to the Indian dominion. He added that Article 370 was designed to aid the constitutional integration process on the same line as it happened with other states. Further, the continued exercise of Article 370 over a period could not be seen as a distortion of its original purpose. He asserted that border states were special territories and their reorganization requires distinct consideration. Thus, the court would refer to the wisdom of parliament in the choices of actions relating to such States. 'Psychological Duality' Resolved By Article 370 Abrogation: SG MehtaThe AG's opening argument was followed by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta. "The petitioners said your lordships will be making a historical decision in more than one way. This is the first time after 75 years that your lordships would be considering the privileges that the citizens of J&K had been deprived of till then," SG Mehta began, acknowledging the profound nature of the case. He said that the confusion over whether Article 370 was intended to be temporary or permanent had led to a 'psychological duality' within J&K. This uncertainty, according to SG Mehta, was resolved with the abrogation of Article 370, providing a sense of clarity and unity. He asserted, "After going through the facts, it will be clear that a large number of fundamental rights and other rights will now be conferred upon the residents of J&K, and they would be fully at par with the rest of their brothers and sisters of this country." Tracing the history of J&K's accession, the SG asserted that the moment the accession was complete, J&K's sovereignty was lost and it got subsumed with the larger sovereignty of India.J&K Was Not The Only Princely State With Special Reservations In IoA: SG MehtaThe next limb of the SG's arguments challenged the assertion of an exclusive special status for J&K. Contrary to the notion that J&K held a special position within British India due to its Constitution in 1939 which continued later on, he argued that during the late 1930s, a multitude of princely states were in the process of drafting their own constitutions, with the assistance of eminent legal minds of the era. "There were 62 states which had their own Constitutions. The argument that J&K had a special status since the beginning which continued till date is factually wrong," he stated. SG Mehta mentioned that Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, a renowned legal expert, was involved in drafting the constitution for a region in Madhya Pradesh. However, his involvement ceased as the said princely State could not bear his fees. He further emphasized that several states, including Manipur and Patna, embarked on...

Article 370 Case | Ends Can't Justify Means, Supreme Court Tells Union On Hearing Day 10

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags