Abrogation of Article 370 not amenable to judicial review, Centre tells Supreme Court

The Government of India has told the Supreme Court that the wisdom of the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India cannot be subject to judicial review. The stance has been taken by the Central government in the counter affidavit filed in batch of cases challenging the revocation of the Special Status from the State of Jammu & Kashmir bifurcation of the State into two Union Territories..A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice NV Ramana along with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant is scheduled to begin hearing the challenge on November 14..In its response, the Centre has justified the move citing national security and integrity. It has also submitted that the full integration of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would lead to people of the region enjoying full protection and benefits of the Constitution of India..The Centre also states that the decision is in favour of the people of the region and would act as a catalyst to their development and for peace in the region. The affidavit states,.“This would also act as a catalyst for enabling the State to achieve its development potential to the fullest, and to provide to its people the best possible standard of living in an atmosphere of peace, amity and tranquility”.The Centre, while rationalizing the Presidential Order of August 5 and the subsequent Reorganization Act, has also made a strong submission stating that “the wisdom of such decisions” is not amenable to judicial review. Seeking rejection of pleadings challenging these executive and legislative decisions, the Centre has submitted,.“It is submitted that while judicial review is part of the Constitutional power of this Hon’ble Court, it is submitted that the justification, efficacy, desirability and the wisdom of such decisions of the Hon’ble President as well as the Parliament is not amenable to judicial review. .It is submitted that the sphere of constitutional challenge is to be limited to Part III of the Constitution and the pleadings of the Petitioners with regard to the rationality or the wisdom of impugned decision/legislative measures, are to be rejected by this Hon’ble Court. “.The Centre has taken this opportunity to explain the nitty-gritty and the fine print of the Presidential Order of August 5 to point out that this executive order enabled for the phrase “Constituent Assembly” to be interpreted as “Legislative Assembly”. Further, since the State was under the President’s rule when the decision was taken, the Parliament was empowered to exercise the powers otherwise vested in the State Legislature..The temporary nature of the Article has also been invoked by the Centre to prove its case. Further, the affidavit has also cited examples of other special and temporary Articles right from Article 371A to 371J. However, despite the existence of these special Articles in relation to certain States, the Constitution of India is applicable to these States in entirety. But the same was not the case when it came to Jammu and Kashmir, the reply enunciates..In favour of removal of Article 370, the Centre has added that this Article enabled provisions to be made which gave special rights to permanent residents and imposes restrictions against others. Article 35A has been referred to as an obstacle in socio-economic development in this affidavit. It is added,.“It is submitted that the following deprivations of the residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir acted as a deterrent against complete integration of the erstwhile State. Chapter III of the Constitution of India, i.e. the fundamental rights, guaranteed to all citizens of India, were not made applicable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in entirety.”.The Centre has thus submitted that all due process of law and Constitutional provisions were upheld in the passing of the Presidential Orders of August 5 and 6 which revoked the Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogated Article 370..“It is incorrect and misconceived to suggest that any of the applicable Rules of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha were violated in the course of the passage of the aforementioned resolutions on 05.08.2019 and 06.08.2019. It is submitted that each resolution was taken up and passed by the respective House of Parliament strictly in accordance with all applicable Rules.”