After Asking Modi Govt For Timeline To Restore J&K Statehood, Supreme Court Questions Need For Bifurcation

In a recent development, the Supreme Court highlighted that Jammu and Kashmir's situation is not unique, pointing out that Punjab and the Northeast regions have encountered similar circumstances.

This observation, made during yesterday's (29 August) proceedings, raised questions about the rationale behind the partitioning of the border state in August 2019.

Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, also raised concerns about preventing the potential misuse of the power to split a state once it's granted to the Central government. This line of discussion led to a consideration of why the matter of bifurcation couldn't have been addressed by the parliament.

During the 12th day of hearings for a series of petitions challenging the revocation of Article 370, the Central government argued that Jammu and Kashmir was a unique case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated, "If Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh were to be bifurcated, then parameters would be different."

Justice SK Kaul, a member of the five-judge constitutional bench led by Justice Chandrachud, highlighted that the country has several states with borders.

In response to Mehta's assertion about the neighboring countries not being friendly and the need to mainstream Jammu and Kashmir due to its historical and present challenges, Justice Chandrachud intervened.

The Chief Justice expressed his concerns, asking how to ensure that the power granted to the Union regarding all Indian states wouldn't be misused.

He also raised a pertinent question, "Does parliament possess the authority to transform an existing Indian state into a Union Territory?"

Additionally, the court emphasized that even if the Constituent Assembly's role was merely recommendatory with respect to Article 370 – which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir – this does not imply that it can be overruled by the President of India.

The court had previously stated that the government would need to justify the procedure it employed to revoke Article 370, as it could not assume that "the end justifies the means."