The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
The Union government on Thursday contended before the Supreme Court that there was a psychological duality and confusion in the mind of a particular section of our country with regard to Article 370 of the Constitution which was exploited and taken advantage of by forces inimical to India.
After abrogation of Article 370, this duality has been addressed, it claimed.
A five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, however, said, it “cannot postulate a scenario where ends justify the means, the means will have to be consistent with the ends”.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the dilution of Article 370, which granted special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
On behalf of the Centre, Attorney General R Venkataramani presented a summary of his written submissions before the court.
He said it is often the case that a limb is amputated to save a life but life is not given to save a limb and they wanted to ensure that the Constitution is preserved with regard to processes and due process and on the other hand there was a scenario of losing the nation.
At the juncture, the bench said, "We cannot postulate a situation where the ends justify the means, also means will have to be consistent with the end”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also representing the Centre, opened the arguments defending the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370. Mehta said due to a confusion on whether Article 370 was temporary or permanent, there was a psychological duality in the mind of a particular section of our country. He claimed that this confusion was taken advantage by forces inimical to India and with the abrogation of Article 370 this duality has ended.
The bench asked Mehta on the importance of accession. It pointed out that petitioners have argued that sovereignty has an internal and external aspect and that latter was lost but not the internal aspect.
Mehta said accession is the first step in losing sovereignty and with Article 1 of the Constitution coming into existence, the only sovereign that remained was – ‘we the people of India’. He said the contention that Jammu and Kashmir was the only princely state with its own Constitution is factually incorrect.
Mehta said that 62 states had framed their own Constitution, a basic argument that J&K only had a Constitution is not factually well founded.
Mehta said abrogation of Article 370 restored fundamental rights of people of J&K and now post abrogation people of J&K enjoying rights equal to any other citizen in any part of the country and ‘equality of status’ was the goal while framing the Constitution.