Defending Constitutional Sanctity: SC Rebukes Unlawful Amendment of Article 370
The Supreme Court safeguards constitutional essence, and warns against bypassing procedures. Verdict emphasizes the delicate balance between governance and constitutional principles, preserving the sanctity of Article 370.
Article 370: Landmark Verdict Asserts Structure Over Interpretation: Upholding Constitutional Integrity
In a landmark decision by a Constitution bench, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the government’s method of amending Article 370 through a back-door interpretation clause in another constitutional article. This decision came in the context of the abrogation of Article 370, a significant constitutional provision related to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Article 370 Invalidated
The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai, and Surya Kant, unanimously held that the constitutional order used to alter Article 370 was ultra vires. The crux of the matter was the utilization of an interpretation clause in Article 367 to amend Article 370, circumventing the prescribed constitutional procedure for such amendments.
The bench’s ruling emphasized that while an ‘interpretation’ clause is meant to define or give meaning to specific terms, it cannot be wielded to amend a provision, especially by bypassing the established amendment procedures. This deviation, according to the bench, defeats the purpose of having a structured procedure for constitutional amendments.
Parliament Redefines Assembly
In the backdrop of the case, Parliament introduced a new clause under Article 367, asserting that the “Constituent Assembly” of Jammu and Kashmir would now be understood as the “Legislative Assembly” of J&K under Article 370. This paved the way for Parliament to assume the powers of the J&K legislative assembly in August 2019, granting approval for the nullification of Article 370, which traditionally required a recommendation from the constituent assembly of J&K.
The court agreed with the petitioners, highlighting that Article 367, dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, has inherent limitations. It cannot be utilized to issue a presidential order making substantial amendments, a task reserved for the procedures outlined in Article 368 or sub-clauses of Article 370 for amending Article 370 itself.
The Chief Justice, in the judgment, articulated that permitting amendments through such a circuitous manner would be disastrous. It would open the door for amendments that evade the stipulated procedures, risking the sanctity of constitutional provisions. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to established procedures and preventing substantive alterations through interpretation or definition clauses.
Read more:-Discover the Majestic Red Fort of Delhi: A Triumph of Mughal Architecture
Caution on Constitutional Tools
Justice Kaul, in his concurring opinion, echoed the concern, cautioning against allowing Article 367(4) to be a tool for amending other constitutional provisions. He emphasized that circumventing the procedures outlined in Article 368 or other provisions would have disastrous effects. The modification in this case not only replaced one authority with another but also altered the very core concept and nature of powers, according to Justice Kaul.
We’re now on WhatsApp. Click to join.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the principle that amendments to fundamental constitutional provisions, such as Article 370, must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedures. It highlights the potential risks and consequences of bypassing established protocols, emphasizing the need to protect the constitutional framework from deviations that could compromise its integrity.
Read more:-Mukul Roy is BJP MLA, up to him if he wants to go to Delhi: Mamata Banerjee
This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the delicate balance between governance and constitutional principles, emphasizing the importance of upholding established procedures to safeguard the essence of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s stance underscores the significance of respecting the constitutional framework in the process of governance and decision-making, ensuring that amendments are carried out with the utmost care and adherence to the stipulated procedures.
Like this post?
Register at One World News to never miss out on videos, celeb interviews, and best reads.
