The Supreme Court on the 10th day of hearing in the Article 370 matter,saw the Central Government supporting the Presidential Orders of 2019 which diluted Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
A bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JusticeSanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant heard the arguments he arguments by the Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani
The CJI asked the Union and asked if the ends could justify the means than means should also be consistent with the ends.
The opening sentence by the Attorney General laid emphasized on the government’s approach of combining understanding, objectivity, and neutrality while addressing this issue.
AG added that they have tried to bring understanding of this emotion, passion-riddled issue with objectivity and neutrality.”
RO put forward his point etter he invoke the words of Abraham Lincoln to illustrate his point.
Abraham Lincoln talked about balancing,losing the nation and preserving the constitution.
He also that as per the general law, life and limb must be protected. But a limb can be amputated to save a life, whereas a life is never given to save a limb.
However,the CJI questioned the principle of ends justifying means stating that thecannot postulate a situation where the ends justify the means also, right? Means should also be consistent with the ends,” the Chief Justice emphasized, underlining the importance of lawful approaches in achieving desired outcomes.
The AG asserted that the methods and procedures employed in the abrogation of Article 370 were conducted within the boundaries of the constitution.
The AG added that the deviation has taken place with regard to this Presidential proclamation, to say that a fraud has been committed on the Constitution is incorrect,
The AG further said that after reading the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the proclamation of the Maharaja of J&K, followed by adoption of 370, all traces of sovereignty of J&K were surrendered to the Indian dominion.
The added that Article 370 was designed for the constitutional integration process on the same line as it happened with other states. Further, the continued exercise of Article 370 over a period could not be seen as a distortion of its original purpose.
AG asserted that border states were special territories and their reorganization requires distinct consideration.
He also added tat, the court would refer to the wisdom of parliament in the choices of actions relating to such States.’Psychological Duality’ Resolved By Article 370 Abrogation: SG MehtaThe AG’s opening argument was followed by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta.