Normalcy, peace returned in Jammu and Kashmir after Article 370 abrogation: Centre
Life has returned to normalcy in the region after three decades of turmoil due to the abrogation of the article 370, the Union government told the Supreme Court
The abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which had conferred special status on Jammu & Kashmir, has led to “unprecedented development, progress, security and stability to the region”, the Union government told the Supreme Court on Monday, adding that “life has returned to normalcy in the region after three decades of turmoil.”
Read here: Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 today. 10 points
Defending its 2019 presidential order that rescinded the special status of J&K and bifurcated the state into two Union territories, the Centre in its affidavit filed on Monday said that the abrogation of Article 370 led to dismantling of the terror network, and incidents of stone pelting and street violence have “now become a thing of the past”.
“The organised stone pelting incidences connected with terrorism-separatist agenda, which were as high as 1,767 in the year 2018 has come down to zero in the year 2023 till date. In 2018, there were 52 incidences of organised bandh/hartal, which has come down to zero in 2023 till date. In addition, resolute anti-terror actions have resulted in dismantling of the terror eco-system which is reflected in a significant drop in terrorist recruitment from 199 in the year 2018 to 12 in the year 2023 till date,” said the affidavit filed by the home ministry.
The affidavit was filed a day before a new constitution bench, comprising its first five judges, is scheduled to take up a clutch of petitions pertaining to Article 370. On Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and including justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant will take up the matter after a gap of more than three years. The petitions, filed by parliamentarians from the National Conference party, Kashmiri citizens, former bureaucrats and various organisations, have challenged the negation of Article 370.
In its fresh response, the Centre emphasised that due to non-application of the Constitution and non-applicability of several beneficial central legislations to J&K prior to the abrogation of Article 370 through the order on August 5, 2019, there were obvious constraints that resulted in alienation of the region.
“This alienation was fuelled by the secessionist forces and terrorist who were having the cross-border support - both financial and otherwise. The lack of stability and lack of applicability of central laws also inevitably resulted in deprivation in common people. Such deprivation also compounded the situation allowing people to be misguided and misused by various secessionist and terrorist forces for anti-India activities,” it added.
Read here: Valley leaders welcome SC decision to begin hearing on Article 370 pleas from July 11
After the extension of all central laws including those related to education, election, reservation and electoral democracy, the Centre said the residents of the region are enjoying the same rights residents of other parts of the country enjoy for the first time after Independence.
“This has resulted in bringing the people of the region into the mainstream and thereby inevitably frustrating the sinister design of secessionist and anti-national forces...Since 2019, the entire region has witnessed an unprecedented era of peace, progress and prosperity. It is submitted that life has returned to normalcy in the region after over three decades of turmoil,” said the affidavit.
According to the Centre, parliamentary wisdom has been exercised prudently and the democratic constitutional step of abrogating Article 370 is changing the entire spectrum of social and economic life of residents of the region, irrespective of caste, creed and region.
“Any instances on the part of the petitioners to seek the prayers as prayed for would not only be against the very interest of the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh but would also be against the security and sovereignty of India due to very peculiar geographical situation of the region and peculiar security challenges arising therefrom,” it maintained.
On Tuesday, the five-judge bench is expected to issue procedural orders to make the matter ready for a hearing on a future date. The bench is also likely to take up a plea by Shah Faesal, a bureaucrat who was initially among the petitioners challenging the abrogation of Article 370, but later filed a request for withdrawing his petition.
The bunch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 was last listed in March 2020, when a five-judge bench declined to refer the matter to a larger bench. The reference was sought on the grounds that two previous judgments of the apex court were conflicting with each other, but the bench did not agree with this contention.
At that time, it was noticed by the bench that there was also an older batch of petitions pending in the Supreme Court that challenged the validity of Articles 370 and 35A, which accorded special status to J&K. It pointed out that all the matters related to Article 370 should be preferably heard together.
While some petitioners brought up the requirement of consent from the constituent assembly for abrogation of Article 370, others questioned the validity of the President’s rule that was in effect when the abrogation was made. A few of these pleas went back to the Instrument of Accession, while some highlighted the Supreme Court’s ruling of 2018 that observed that Article 370 had gained a status of permanence.
Many petitions have also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, by which the state was bifurcated into two Union territories with effect from October 30, 2019.
Read here: Valley leaders welcome SC decision to begin hearing on Article 370 pleas from July 11
On August 28, 2019, the Supreme Court issued notices on the pleas despite resistance from the central government, which argued that Article 370 had international and cross-border implications. The Centre had at that time argued that it was a sensitive matter and whatever happens in the country over it would be raked up at the United Nations. While issuing notices, the court referred the matter to a five-judge constitution bench.
Recommended Topics