Premium
This is an archive article published on August 9, 2023

Article 370 hearing: Referendum not an option under Constitution says SC

Referring to some parts of the speech that were left unread by Sibal, the CJI lauded Abdullan for his “foresight”. Sibal said ultimately the issue is that the will of the people was not considered at all.

Supreme court, constitutional democracy, no question of referendum, Constitution, CJI D Y Chandrachud, Kapil Sibal, Article 370, Brexit referendum, indian express newsThe CJI, however, said that “in a constitutional democracy, seeking the opinion of the people has to be through established institutions. (Express File Photo)
Listen to this article
Article 370 hearing: Referendum not an option under Constitution says SC
x
00:00
1x 1.5x 1.8x

Seeking public opinion in a constitutional democracy like India has to be through established institutions and there is no question of referendum under the country’s Constitution, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench hearing petitions challenging the changes made to Article 370 of the Constitution that gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, said this when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for some of the petitioners referred to Brexit referendum following which United Kingdom decided to withdraw from the European Union.

Sibal cited it to buttress his argument that the process of amending Article 370 could not have been done “unilaterally” by the Centre without the people of J&K agreeing to it. “Your Lordships would remember Brexit. What happened? There was no constitutional provision seeking a referendum. But when you want to sever a relationship, which has been entered into, you must ultimately seek the opinion of the people. Because people are central to this decision, not the Union of India. It goes counter to the very grain of Article 370,” Sibal told the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

Story continues below this ad

The CJI, however, said that “in a constitutional democracy, seeking the opinion of the people has to be through established institutions. So long as a democracy exists as it does, in terms of constitutional democracy, any recourse to the will of the people has to be expressed and sought in terms of established institutions. So, you cannot entertain a Brexit-type referendum. That (Brexit) is a political decision which was taken by the then government. But within a Constitution like ours, there is no question of a referendum”.

Sibal also cited a speech made by Sheikh Abduullah to the J&K Constituent Assembly on November 5, 1991, about how the former CM of the erstwhile state had cautioned against any attempt to change the status between J&K and India “arbitrarily”.

Referring to some parts of the speech that were left unread by Sibal, the CJI lauded Abdullan for his “foresight”. Sibal said ultimately the issue is that the will of the people was not considered at all.

“An executive act of the Union of India cannot alter unilaterally provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable to J&K, including getting rid of the special status, given acceded to by the Government of India and by Parliament in enacting Article 370 of the Constitution,” argued Sibal.

Story continues below this ad

Sibal concluded his arguments saying that “Constitution is a set of values… and if you through such executive acts silence the voice of people, what is left of democracy”.

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement