What has changed in Jammu and Kashmir
Source: By Faizan Mustafa: The Indian Express
The Govenment on 5 August 2019 fulfilled its election promise of removing the special status for Jammu and Kashmir in India’s Constitution. Special status was withdrawn by invoking the same Article 370 which had been seen as firewalling the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir. What are the constitutional issues in — and arising out of — this development? What will change in the state and the country? What can be the basis of a possible legal challenge to the decision of the government?
Has Article 370 been scrapped?
The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019, issued by President Ram Nath Kovind “in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution”, has not abrogated Article 370. While this provision remains in the statute book, it has been used to withdraw the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Presidential Order has extended all provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. It has also ordered that references to the Sadr-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir shall be construed as references to the Governor of the state, and “references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers”.
This is the first time that Article 370 has been used to amend Article 367 (which deals with Interpretation) in respect of Jammu and Kashmir, and this amendment has then been used to amend Article 370 itself.
What is the status of Article 35A now?
Article 35A stems from Article 370, and was introduced through a Presidential Order in 1954. Article 35A does not appear in the main body of the Constitution — Article 35 is followed by Article 36 — but appears in Appendix I. Article 35A empowers the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define the permanent residents of the state, and their special rights and privileges.
On 5 August 2019 Presidential Order has extended all provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, including the chapter on Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the discriminatory provisions under Article 35A are now unconstitutional. The President may also withdraw Article 35A. This provision is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court on the ground that it could have been introduced in the Indian Constitution only through a constitutional amendment under Article 368, and not through a Presidential Order under Article 370. However, Presidential Order, too has amended Article 367 without following the amending process.
So, what has changed in Jammu and Kashmir?
Rajya Sabha on 5 August 2019 approved The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019. The Bill was also passed by Lok Sabha on next day. In effect, the state of Jammu and Kashmir will now cease to exist; it will be replaced by two new Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. UTs have become states earlier; this is the first time that a state has been converted into a UT. The UT of Jammu and Kashmir will have an Assembly, like in Delhi and Puducherry.
Article 3 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution by a simple majority to change the boundaries of a state, and to form a new state. But this change requires that such a Bill be first referred to the concerned state Assembly by the President for ascertaining its views. Explanation II of Article 3 says Parliament’s power extends to forming Union Territories.
Not only has Jammu and Kashmir lost its special status, it has been given a status lower than that of other states. Instead of 29, India will now have 28 states. Kashmir will no longer have a Governor, rather a Lieutenant Governor like in Delhi or Puducherry.
It is also likely that corporates and individuals will be able to buy land in Jammu and Kashmir. Non-Kashmiris might now get jobs in Kashmir. A process of demographic change might begin, and progress over the coming decades.
What is the significance of Article 370?
The most important feature of federalism in the United States was the “compact” between the 13 erstwhile British colonies that constituted themselves first into a confederation and then into a federal polity under the country’s 1791 constitution. India’s Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962) attached the highest importance to an “agreement or compact between states” as an essential characteristic of federalism. In SBI (2016), the apex court accepted the presence of this compact for Kashmir. Article 370 was an essential facet of India’s federalism because, like the compact in the United States, it governed the relationship of the Union with Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court has held federalism to be part of the basic structure of India’s Constitution.
The original draft of Article 370 was drawn up by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. A modified version of the draft was passed in the Constituent Assembly of India on May 27, 1949. Moving the motion, N Gopalaswami Ayyangar said that if the accession was not ratified by a plebiscite, “we shall not stand in the way of Kashmir separating herself away from India”.
On October 17, 1949, Article 370 was included in India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly. Some critics of Article 370 have argued earlier that Kashmir joined India in 1947 without any conditions, and Article 370 unnecessarily gave it special status. However, the drafting of the Constitution ended on November 26, 1949 — Article 370 had been included before the Constitution was adopted.
What did the Instrument of Accession say?
The Indian Independence Act, 1947, divided British India, i.e., the territories under the direct administration of the British, into India and Pakistan. The 580-odd princely states that had signed subsidiary alliances with the British had their sovereignty restored to them, and were given the options of remaining independent, joining the Dominion of India, or joining the Dominion of Pakistan. Section 6(a) of the Act said joining either India or Pakistan would have to be through an Instrument of Accession. States could specify the terms on which they were joining one of the new dominions.
Technically, therefore, the Instrument of Accession was like a treaty between two sovereign countries that had decided to work together. The maxim of pacta sunt servanda in international law, which governs contracts or treaties between states, asks that promises must be honoured. On 5 August 2019 Presidential Order under Article 370 is a negation of the constitutional pact that India signed with Maharaja Hari Singh.
The Maharaja, the Hindu king of a Muslim-majority state, had initially wanted to stay independent. He signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, after Afridi tribesmen and Pakistan Army regulars invaded the state, and India agreed to help only after he acceded. The Schedule appended to the Instrument of Accession gave the Indian Parliament power to legislate for Jammu and Kashmir on only defence, external affairs and communications.
In Clause 5 of the Instrument of Accession, Hari Singh said that the terms of “my Instrument of Accession cannot be varied by any amendment of the Act or of The Indian Independence Act unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument”. In Clause 7, he said: “Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.”
Article 370 was a constitutional recognition of the conditions mentioned in the Instrument of Accession, and reflected the contractual rights and obligations of the two parties.
But wasn’t Article 370 just a temporary provision?
Article 370 is the second Article of Part XXI of India’s Constitution, which is titled “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”. Article 370 was temporary in the sense that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was given the right to modify/delete/retain it. The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir decided in its wisdom to retain it.
The other view was that it was “temporary” until a plebiscite had been held to ascertain the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In a written reply to Parliament last year, the government had said there was no proposal to remove Article 370.
- In Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha vs Union Of India (2017), Delhi High Court rejected a petition that argued that Article 370 was temporary, and that its continuation was a fraud on the Constitution.
- In April 2018, the Supreme Court said that the word “temporary” in the headnote notwithstanding, Article 370 was not temporary.
- In Santosh Kumar (2017), the apex court said that due to historical reasons, Jammu and Kashmir had a special status.
- The Supreme Court in SBI v Zaffar Ullah Nehru (2016) observed that the federal structure of the Constitution is reflected in Part XXI. The court also said that J&K has a special status, and that Article 370 was not temporary. The court referred to Article 369 of Part XXI that specifically mentions the period of five years; no time limit is mentioned in Article 370. The court observed that Article 370 cannot be repealed without the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.
- In Prem Nath Kaul (1959), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed that Article 370(2) shows that the continuance of the exercise of powers conferred on Parliament and the President by the relevant temporary provisions of Article 370(1) is made conditional on the final approval of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.
- In Sampat Prakash (1968), the apex court decided that Article 370 could be invoked even after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. “Article 370 has never ceased to be operative,” the five-judge Bench said.
Why didn’t governments before this take such a step?
Nehru probably lacked the political will, and wanted to honour the constitutional pact with Maharaja Hari Singh. He also had a sentimental connection with Kashmir. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s idea was that of the healing touch — in the form of Kashmiriyat, Insaniyat and Jamhooriyat. The first Modi government was in an alliance with the PDP in Jammu and Kashmir till 2018. The Home Minister has said that once peace returns and the situation improves, the government will restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
Can the Presidential Order be challenged in the Supreme Court on what grounds?
It will most likely be challenged. However, the Supreme Court will consider that Article 370 does, indeed, give sweeping powers to the President. It might also take two to three years for a Constitution Bench of the court to decide such a challenge.
The possible grounds of challenge could include the argument that the conversion of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory is in violation of Article 3, as the Bill was not referred by the President to the state Assembly. Also, can the Constituent Assembly mean Legislative Assembly? Are the Governor and the state government one and same?
The constitutional relevance of Instrument of Accession will also be examined by the court. Whether Article 370 was part of the basic structure will likely be considered. The use of Article 367 in amending Article 370 will also be examined.
So, is Kashmir now fully integrated with India?
Article 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir constitution itself declares the state to be an integral part of India. In the preamble of the Jammu and Kashmir constitution, not only is there no claim to sovereignty like in the Constitution of India, there is, rather, a categorical acknowledgment that the object of the Jammu and Kashmir constitution is “to further define the existing relationship of the state with the Union of India as its integral part thereof”. Integration thus, was already complete. Article 370 merely gave some autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir, which has now been withdrawn.
[printfriendly]
