Interview: Conversation with senior advocate Ashwini Dubey regarding the legal aspects of removal of Article 370

The central government had neutralized Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir and divided it into two union territories. Due to which there was a lot of political opposition and the government had to be strict. Opposition leaders had to be put under house arrest for months. The matter reached the Supreme Court, on which the verdict was given recently. In its decision, the court justified the decision of the central government. The court clearly says that Article 370 was a temporary provision for Jammu and Kashmir and the President has the right to abrogate it. How does jurist and senior Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Dubey view the decision from the legal point of view? In this context, journalist Dr. Ramesh Thakur had a detailed conversation with him. Here are the highlights of the conversation-

Question: How do you view the decision of the Supreme Court?

Answer- It is a welcome decision. Jammu and Kashmir, a state considered an integral part of India, may have been united on paper, but verbally it always remained cut off from India due to Article 370. But, now it has been integrated. The educated society and experts in law understood very well that Article 370 was temporary and also completely divisive. One should not mourn his departure, but should be happy. However, a handful of people are still in opposition and probably will continue to be so. But a time will come when he too will regret his decision. With the removal of Article 370, positive changes are being seen everywhere in Jammu and Kashmir. As far as I am of the opinion, when the law has given its supreme seal, then there should be no protest without any reason.

Question: Will there be improvement there now? By the way, what are the advantages of removing the article and what were the disadvantages of staying?

Answer- See, as far as losses are concerned, due to Article 370, the Central Government was not able to declare financial emergency in Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 (1) (c) mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution will not apply to Kashmir through Article 370. Because Article 1 lists the federal states. The main drafter of this article was ‘Iyengar’ who gave local autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. Talking about benefits, there is no mention of this article in the law. Its removal has led to the unification of the whole of India. The slogan of ‘One Country, One Constitution’ has been fulfilled. Just as there will be happiness in every village and every house of Jammu and Kashmir in Punjab and Haryana, the same atmosphere will now be there there.

Question: The local leadership of Jammu and Kashmir, like Mehbooba Mufti, is calling the decision a defeat for the ‘Idea of ​​India’?

Answer: This issue has been one of contradiction. Both Articles 370 and 35A separated Jammu and Kashmir from the mainstream of national unity. In the past, the king had said many times that this was hindering development. But his words were ignored by the previous governments. Then, Congress leader Karan Singh was the first to welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. As far as Mehbooba Mufti or some other local leaders are concerned, they all have not yet escaped from the clutches of disruptive ideology. I am saying that the court followed his words. The court has sternly told the central government that elections should be held in the state soon. If Mehbooba Mufti really wants the welfare of the people there, then she should win the elections, establish her government, and then with the help of the Centre, start the stalled development works there. What benefit will there be from making false statements and misleading people?

Question: ‘Gupkar members’ could not understand the legal aspects and are adamant on protesting?

Answer: There is no point in protesting now. See, not only India, but the entire world is aware of the fact that Article 370 has been used for years for narrow political gains. The sad thing was that Pakistani ideology had completely mixed in. The money sent by the Center did not go to public welfare schemes and instead reached the pockets of the leaders. Therefore, the court has accepted that there is no point in keeping the temporary provision permanent. The only reason was to end it.

Question: The court has also asked the central government to conduct elections early.

Answer- Elections should be held without any delay. The court is very concerned about the interests of the people of the state. The court wants the people there to get their statehood back without any delay. Chief Justice Justice Chandrachud has then stressed to the Central Government that now Article 370 has been removed. Complete your electoral processes and conduct assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir by 30 September 2024. I am also in favor of this decision, elections should be held there immediately, people should get an elected government so that like other states, development work can start smoothly there too. Governor’s rule has been in place there for a long time. I think in such a situation the chances of much development will be less. Therefore, the state should get a Chief Minister who can fulfill the needs of the people.

Question: Kapil Sibal was advocating well regarding the case, but in the end he also gave up?

Answer- I respect him, he is very senior. Therefore I do not want to comment much on this subject. But on the day of the decision he had a tweet which says a lot. He wrote that ‘some battles are fought only to be lost’. His point was that good work should be appreciated by everyone. Well, the job of a lawyer is to fulfill his duty. I think Kapil Sibal also fulfilled his responsibility honestly.

-Dr. Ramesh Thakur

(The author is an independent journalist and commentator.)