In an interview with journalist Stephen Sackur on BBC’s HARDtalk show, Justice (Retd) DY Chandrachud defended the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Narendra Modi Government’s decision to abrogate Article 370.
Answering Sackur’s question on removal of Article 370, Chandrachud said, “Was 75 years was too short a period to abrogate such a provision.” He emphasised that the provision was meant to disappear with time and merge with the Constitution.
Notably, Article 370 of the Indian constitution gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, which was supposed to be a transitional status following Indian independence. However, this continued till 2019, 72 years after India attained freedom. Article 370 conferred on Jammu & Kashmir the power to have a separate constitution, a state flag, and autonomy of internal administration.
In August 2019, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah announced in the Rajya Sabha that the President of India had issued ‘The Constitution Order, 2019’ (C.O. 272) under Article 370, superseding the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. The order stated that all the provisions of the Indian Constitution applied to Jammu and Kashmir.
The removal of special status to Article 370 removal was challenged in the highest court but Supreme Court, led by then CJI DY Chandrachud, didn’t interfere with the decision. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by DY Chandrachud unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate Article 370.
Notably, following the abrogation of Article 370, state of Jammu & Kashmir was divided into two Union Territories, Jammu & Kashmir being one, and Ladakh the other.
During the HARDTalk show, where Sackur is infamous for asking really tough questions, he asked Justice Chandrachud, “Article 370 was part of the Constitution, which guaranteed the special status, the autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, now that had been out the place of the very inception of the modern state of India. You agreed that the government had a right to abrogate Article 370. Many legal scholars were deeply disappointed with your decision because they felt you had failed to uphold the Constitution. Explained to me why you took the decision you did.”
In response, Justice Chandrachud politely told Sackur that a judge must refrain from defending or critiquing their own decisions. Chandrachud also clarified that Article 370 was meant to eventually fade away and merge with the rest of the Constitution.
