Srinagar- Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, has defended his decision on Article 370, stating that it was always meant to be a “transitional provision” in the Indian Constitution. He argued that the provision was intended to eventually dissolve and merge with the rest of the Constitution over time.
Speaking in an interview with BBC journalist Stephen Sackur, Chandrachud responded to criticism from legal scholars who were disappointed with his ruling on Article 370. The provision, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was revoked by the Indian government in August 2019. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chandrachud, upheld this decision on December 13, affirming the President’s power to abrogate Article 370.
During the interview, Sackur asked Chandrachud whether he believed that 75 years was too short a period to revoke Article 370, considering its historical significance. Chandrachud explained that Article 370 was originally part of the transitional provisions in the Constitution and was never meant to be permanent. He said, “Since I was the author of one of the judgments in the case, a judge by their very nature of profession has some restraints on either defending or critiquing their judgments… Article 370 of the Constitution when it was introduced into the Constitution at the birth of the Constitution was part of a chapter which is titled ‘transitional arrangements’ or ‘transitional provisions’. It was later renamed as ‘temporary and transitional provisions’, and therefore at the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was that what was transitional would have to fade away and have to merge with the overall text, the context of the Constitution. Now is 75 plus years too less for abrogating a transitional provision.”
Chandrachud explained that the Supreme Court recognized the power of an elected government to revoke a provision that was meant to be transitional. He stated that if the government, which is accountable to the people, decides to remove such a provision, it is legally valid.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to restore democracy in Jammu and Kashmir, setting a timeline for the revival of its democratic process. Chandrachud remarked, “We said that what was intended to be transitional provision, if the government which is accountable to the people and the elected government takes the view, the Centre that we are abrogating what was essentially transitional that is fine. Second, the Supreme Court said that the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir must be restored, effectively setting a timeline for that.”
The former CJI also addressed allegations regarding his faith and its potential impact on his judgments. “I make no bones of the fact that I am a man of faith,” he said. “Our Constitution does not require you to be an atheist to be an independent judge, and I value my faith.” Justice Chandrachud emphasised that his faith teaches him the universality of religion and the importance of dispensing equal and even-handed justice.
Justice Chandrachud also dismissed concerns about his perceived closeness to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asserting that basic courtesies between high constitutional officials do not sway judicial outcomes.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court had, in fact, ruled against the government in the electoral bonds case, showcasing the judiciary’s independence.
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
