The ongoing Supreme Court hearing regarding the abrogation of Article 370 reached its 10th day, with the Centre arguing that Article 370 of the Constitution was designed to integrate princely states into India, and Jammu and Kashmir was just one of the 62 states that possessed their own constitutions at the time.The Supreme Court is presently hearing a group of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the nature of Article 370 have been key points of contention raised by the petitioners. The Centre argued that both the independence of Jammu and Kashmirs constitution and the permanence of Article 370 were misconceptions.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, said that during the integration of British provinces and princely states with British India in 1939, there were 62 states that had their own constitutions. He pointed out that the foundation of Jammu and Kashmir having a special place in geographical British India due to its constitution in 1939 was factually incorrect.Mehta further said that 286 states were in the process of framing their own constitution and that many princely states including Rewa had appointed experts to frame the constitution.“Detailed arguments were made that J&K had a special place in the geographical British India because that was the only part which had a constitution in 1939. That is factually incorrect. There were 62 states which had their own Constitutions. The foundation of J&K has since beginning is factually wrong. 286 states were in the process of framing their Constitutions of this period in the late 1930s. Counsels engaged to help the princely states to draw their constitutions,” Mehta said.“In such a situation, it is absolutely wrong to say that only Jammu and Kashmir had a special constitution or special status,” he added, further giving the example of the erstwhile princely state of Manipur in this context.Mehta referred to Indias first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who stated that after the merger of sovereignty with the Government of India, no Rajwada (princely state) could maintain a separate army or force or collect taxes independently.Only Constitution supreme document conferring sovereignty: Centre on Article 370The Centre argued that the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly permitted the continuance of Article 370, even though the term temporary appeared in the marginal notes of the article.Chief Justice DY Chandrachud raised questions about the overriding nature of the Jammu and Kashmir constitution, given the self-limiting character of Article 370.“Once the Constitution of India came into force, all the states mentioned in Schedule I lost their sovereignty. This is how countries are made. Only the Constitution remained the supreme document conferring sovereignty on the people of India and all other documents were subsumed in it,” Mehta said.Mehta also discussed the Indian Independence Act of 1947, highlighting that every princely state was allowed to set forth its own terms and conditions in the instruments of accession.“This was done to create a sense of confidence in the princely states… That you are acceding to the Union but we are giving you the ability to have reservations in your Instrument of Accession. We must also put ourselves at that time – the Union of India wanted these princely states to come within its fold. So we gave them assurance that you can decide today that you will only give certain subjects to the Union,” CJI Chandrachud responded.The hearing is set to resume on August 28 and will be heard the by a five-judge constitution bench led by the CJI and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, and BR Gavai.
