Article 370 | 'Integration' Not A Measure Of How Much Control Centre Has : Nitya Ramakrishnan To Supreme Court [Day 9]

On the ninth day of the Constitution Bench hearing in the pleas challenging dissolution of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, the petitioner counsels concluded their arguments. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, witnessed arguments raised by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, and Advocate Warisha Farasat along with intervenors. The arguments raised by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan can be found here. The important queries raised by the bench today can be found here. Other articles on today's proceedings can be found here and here.Integration Not A Measure Of Centre's Control: Senior Advocate Nitya RamakrishnanSenior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan commenced her arguments by challenging the assumption that Article 370 was temporary and served as a means of 'greater integration'. She urged the court for reconsidering this conventional narrative and contended that the notion that Article 370 was established as a stepping stone to eventual integration was fundamentally flawed. Integration, she argued, was not merely a measure of Central control but rather a complex process that extended beyond administrative governance. She said–"Integration is not a measure of how much control the Centre has. It is not a function of central control or power. It would be wrong to say that people in UTs are more integrated than people in a VI schedule area. That's not how our democracy works."She elaborated that the level of integration should not be gauged by the degree of control exercised by the central government but rather by the shared sovereignty and democratic pact that the people of J&K entered into upon acceding to India. She drew the attention of the court to the historic and geopolitical context that shaped this shared sovereignty and emphasized that Article 370 reflected the essence of this partnership."We are not waiting for them to integrate anymore," Ramakrishnan asserted while describing Article 370 as the merging of democratic will of people of J&K with that of the rest of India.Article 356 Only Permits Exercise Of Functions, Not Powers: Senior Advocate Nitya RamakrishnanRamakrishnan then asserted that the mechanisms of checks and balances between the Central Government and the State Government of J&K, as envisioned in Article 370, should be upheld to maintain the democratic ethos of the region. Addressing recent developments in the region, Ramakrishnan criticised the imposition of Governor's rule and the subsequent dissolution of the state assembly. She questioned the legitimacy of such actions in light of the shared sovereignty and democratic principles enshrined in Article 370. She said–"In 70 years, all of five Constitution Orders have been issued during President's Rule or Governor's Rule. One in 1986 and four extending the term of presidential proclamation in the year between '90-'96."Ramakrishnan's next limb of arguments focused on the exercise of Article 356 by the Union and stated that the President could only exercise the functions of the State Government and not the powers. She added that Article 370 provided the State Government with powers, and not merely functions. In this context, she said–"Function is a duty. Power is a discretion. It's a sui generis power given to a responsible state government. It cannot be taken over under Article 356 which is subservient to Article 370."In her argument, Ramakrishnan emphasized that even a responsible state government's consent would not suffice for altering the terms of Article 370, and any such changes must originate directly from a Constituent Assembly. Speaking before the court, Ramakrishnan firmly argued, "A constituent assembly signifies an exclusive agency, exclusively devoted to the representation of Jammu and Kashmir. The recommendation for any alteration must come from an agency that is equal in mandate and stature. Today, after 1957, there exists no agency comparable to the Constituent Assembly of J&K. The will of the people of J&K is integral to the mode of governance specified in Article 370."Swift Dissolution Of House By Governor Shows Mal Intent: Senior Advocate Nitya RamakrishnanShe expressed concerns that any attempts to modify Article 370 without adhering to the proper constitutional processes could undermine the democratic principles enshrined in the article. She criticized the erosion of the democratic will of the people of J&K through processes she deemed to be motivated by "malintent."Ramakrishnan also highlighted the circumstances surrounding the imposition of Governor's rule and the subsequent dissolution of the state assembly. She questioned the swift dissolution of the house within 30 minutes of political parties expressing their readiness to form a government. She presented evidence, including WhatsApp messages and...

Article 370 | 'Integration' Not A Measure Of How Much Control Centre Has : Nitya Ramakrishnan To Supreme Court [Day 9]

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Article 370 | 'Integration' Not A Measure Of How Much Control Centre Has : Nitya Ramakrishnan To Supreme Court [Day 9]

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers