A 5-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud unanimously upheld the cancellation of special status for Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court has also said that steps should be taken to hold elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September next year.
The Supreme Court has also said that full statehood should be granted to Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible. In this context, the most important question before the Supreme Court was whether the Central Government can divide a state into two Union Territories during the President's rule.
This question is going to have very important consequences in the future. Because it has given the Central Government the weapon to first impose President's rule and then convert the entire state or a part of it into a Union Territory.
Many legal experts and opposition leaders believe that the decision increases the central government's control over the states and loosens the federal structure.
The issue of federalism in India is highly controversial. Many states are accusing the central government of usurping their powers. Several state governments have been accusing central government-appointed governors of stalling bills.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee says the central government has withheld Rs 1.15 lakh crore in guarantee fund and GST for welfare schemes. Also, the idea of one country-one election has increased the fear of centralization of the country's politics.
Key questions before the Court
Article 3 of the Constitution lays down the process of formation of new states. It states that Parliament can create new states by merging or separating two or more states. For this a bill can be introduced in the Parliament based on the recommendations of the President. After that it is mandatory to file it in Rajya Sabha. In 2019, when Jammu and Kashmir was under President's rule, a bill was passed in Parliament to bifurcate Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh into two union territories.
Under this, the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir with a Legislative Assembly and the Union Territory of Ladakh without a Legislative Assembly were created.
Therefore, the most important question before the Supreme Court was whether the formation of the two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh was valid or not.
What did the court say?
The court did not express its opinion on the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory. The Supreme Court had said that since the government had promised to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, there was no need for the court to decide whether a state should be bifurcated into two union territories.
However, the court upheld the creation of Ladakh as a Union Territory. The Court held that the Center has the right under Article 3 to create a Union Territory out of any State, even if the President is in power. The Supreme Court has also said that there is no limit to the activities of the Parliament and the President during the President's rule. What did the court say?
The court did not express its opinion on the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory. The Supreme Court had said that since the government had promised to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, there was no need for the court to decide whether a state should be bifurcated into two union territories.
However, the court upheld the creation of Ladakh as a Union Territory. The Court held that the Center has the right under Article 3 to create a Union Territory out of any State, even if the President is in power.
The Supreme Court has also said that there is no limit to the activities of the Parliament and the President during the President's rule.
What does the opposition say?
Opposition leaders say the decision weakens the federal system. The Congress said it was disappointed that the court had not given any decision on whether an entire state can be converted into a union territory.
Senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the government has no constitutional right to do this. According to the Communist Party of India (CPI-M), the decision gave the Center the right to unilaterally decide and change the constitution of the states.
With this decision, the MP said, 'There will be no obstacle to the central government in making Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad or Mumbai a union territory'. Asaduddin Owaisi said. Any state including Tamil Nadu can be made a Union Territory - Legal Expert
Constitutional law expert Anuj Bhuania said, "To not decide on the issue of bifurcation of a state into a union territory is to deny the issue altogether."
He says the court cannot refuse to rule on the issue of bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories as the Center has promised to restore statehood.
“We have seen before that the Court has provided such a basic theoretical framework for determining what amendments Parliament can make.
An article published in the English newspaper 'The Hindu' said, "This decision empowers the central government to implement President's rule and make major changes like approving constitutional amendments or withdrawing important cases."
Senior advocate and legal expert Fali Nariman said in an interview, "India is being centralized as a country as a result of this decision."
Another legal expert Alok Prasanna wrote in 'Indian Express', "The direct effect of this judgment of the Supreme Court is that the Central Government can convert any state into a Union Territory whenever it wants, citing any reason."
0 Comments