The Government’s decision to abrogate Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu & Kashmir, evoked mixed response from legal experts on Monday as some hailed it as “historic” and “long overdue” step while others called it “political misadventure” fraught with danger.
The Modi Government has abolished Article 370 and simultaneously moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.
Senior advocate and constitutional law expert Rakesh Dwivedi said, “It (the decision) is completely legal. There is no chance of succeeding of plea against the Government’s decision.” “It was a long overdue historic step. It should go and it is no more required. It is a welcome step. Kashmir was also open for outsiders so I don’t understand why there should be Article 35 A.”
On the other hand, former Union Law Minister and senior Congress leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar said, “The decision of the Union Govt to alter the status of the Jammu & Kashmir is fraught with serious political consequences for the nation.”
While former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee was of the view that “nothing revolutionary has been done (by the Government)” as now the laws which were not applicable to the state till now will be applicable now.
“It is very complicated legal situation and I have not fully analysed it. It appears what they (Centre) have superseded the old Presidential order,” former Solicitor General and senior advocate Harish Salve said.
In Kolkata, Former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Ashok Kumar Ganguly said that abolition of Article 370 is “apparently” not unconstitutional. He said the decision to grant special status to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution was temporary and transitional, and as such it cannot last forever. “That temporary provision continued for more than 70 years, how long can it continue? I cannot say whether it is politically wise or not, but apparently, it is not unconstitutional,” Ganguly told PTI here.
He said if the abrogation of Article 370 is challenged in court, it might take a different view on a deeper probe, but “apparently there is no unconstitutionality in it”.
Ganguly said that under Article 370 (sub-article 3), there is a provision for withdrawing this special status, which can be done by the President in consultation with the State Assembly.
“Since there is no State Assembly now (in J&K) and President’s Rule is in operation, the entire legislative function vests in the President,” Ganguly, who was a Supreme Court judge from December 2008 to February 2012, said.