'Any change in Constitution that brings everyone at par...': SG on Article 370 abrogation

Any change in Constitution that brings everyone at par can never be faulted with, said Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, while presenting Centre's arguments in favour of abrogation of Article 370 on 12th day of hearing, Tuesday. SG Mehta was referring to Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union Of India (1993) case.

"In this case (Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union Of India), court said that any change in Constitution which brings everyone at par can never be faulted with. Princely states, after formation of Constitution, lost ir special privilege and word 'fraternity' had to be given meaning," Solicitor General said. 

While initiating his arguments, Mehta provided a brief outline of his submissions before bench. He said his arguments will majorly focus on three points — Article 370’s interpretation, J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, and parameters of powers of legislature during President’s Rule (Article 356). 

petitions contesting removal of Jammu and Kashmir's special status are being heard by a Constitution Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.

Arguing before Constitution bench, SG Mehta said: "If I start with (Article) 370, some of arguments on or side were that re was an assurance given to princely states as a result of which y joined India and Article 370 is a result of that.”

“This happened first in case of Madhavrao Scindia - govt withdrew privy purses. re were two constitutional provisions- Article 291 and 362 which provided for privy purses. Central government exercised powers under 366 and deleted term 'princely states'. This court allowed that petition and said that so long as se two provisions exist, you cant take away privy purses by merely changing Article 366 which is definition clause. After judgment in Madhavrao Scindia, re was a constitutional amendment. government repealed it. So route was taken. That came to be challenged and matter went to be challenged in Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union Of India (1993),” Mehta said. 

Supreme court had ruled in Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union Of India (1993) case that any change in Constitution that brings everyone at par can never be faulted with, Solicitor General argued adding that princely states, after formation of Constitution, lost ir special privilege and word 'fraternity' had to be given meaning,  SC stated in 1993.

SG Tushar Mehta (while reading from SC’s Raghunathrao judgement), stated, "A serious argument has been advanced that privy purse was a just quid pro quo to Rulers of Indian States for surrendering ir sovereignty and rights over ir territories; This argument based on ground of breaking of solemn pledges and breach of promise cant stand much scrutiny."

"To say that without voluntary accession, India would be different from that Bharat that came into being prior to accession is untenable; One should t lose sight of fact that neir 'cause of ir antipathy towards Rulers r due to any xephobia, did Indian Govt entertain idea of integration but because of will of people. It was people who were instrumental in integration."

August 29 marks 12th day of hearing by apex court on pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370. CJI Chandrachud on Monday said that fundamental rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir were taken away by implementing Article 35A. Article 35A gave state legislature power to define ‘permanent residents’ of state and provide m with special privileges and denying or people with fundamental rights. 

CJI heading Constitutional Bench observed that, “Article 35A gave special rights and privileges to permanent residents and virtually took away rights of n-residents. se rights included right to equal opportunity of State employment, right to acquire property and right to settle in Jammu and Kashmir,” 

During hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that Jammu and Kashmir witnessed application Preamble of Indian Constitution sans phrases "socialist" and "secular." He added that Valley has seen an increase in investments and visitors since abrogation of Article 370.

former State of Jammu and Kashmir was divided into two Union Territories on August 5, 2019, after Centre decided to revoke its special status. Several petitions against repeal of Article 370's provisions and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, were sent to a Constitution Bench in 2019.