On Wednesday, August 23, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud rebuked advocate Manish Tewari after he anticipated the Centre abrogating the special provisions in Northeast under Article 371 just like it did with Article 370 that gave special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. The court reprimanded him for raising irrelevant issues during the hearing on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and asked him to stick to the matter.
“Why should we deal with anything in anticipation and apprehension? We are dealing with a specific provision namely Article 370. We don’t really have to expand this to what impact or interpretation it will have on other provisions of the Constitution,” said CJI DY Chandrachud. In a significant move, the Supreme Court bench immediately dismissed the arguments made by the Congress leader after the Solicitor General intervened in the matter.
The saga began after Tewari made his argument during the SC hearing of a number of petitions challenging the revocation of Article 370 and the resulting partition of Jammu and Kashmir into the two Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh. He mentioned Article 371, an article that deals with several states, saying that Article 370 and 371 are basically the same, and there is an apprehension that the govt may take down this article also.
“Independent India decided to manage its periphery through Constitutional guarantee. We were building a republic. Hence, Article 370, 371, and Schedule 6 applying to Assam, Tripura, and Meghalaya becomes relevant in this matter. Even a slight apprehension in the periphery of India can have serious implications and one such situation our Lordships are seeing is in Manipur,” Tewari said as he represented former minister from Arunachal Pradesh.
Following this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected Tewari and said that the latter was indulging in potential mischief as there was no apprehension of abrogating Article 371 and there was no need to create apprehension.
“We must understand the difference between temporary provision which is Article 370 and special provisions with regard to other states regarding the North East. The Central Government has no intention to touch any part which gives special provisions to North East and other regions. This submission would have a very potential mischief and therefore I am interrupting and making it clear. Let us confine to temporary provision for Jammu and Kashmir,” SG Tushar Mehta could be heard saying during the hearing.
The 5-judge bench also then asked Tiwari to avoid making anticipations and focus the submission only with regards to Article 370. “Why should we deal with anything in anticipation and apprehension? We are dealing with a specific provision namely Article 370. We don’t really have to expand this to what impact or interpretation it will have on other provisions of the Constitution,” said CJI DY Chandrachud.
“Why should we apprehend that this is what the government is about to do in the other parts of the country,” the CJI added as Tewari attempted to clarify that he was not referring to the current Central Government but was referring to the Principal at state.
The CJI also directed Tewari saying that there was no reason to anticipate what would the government do in other regions of the country. “As far as other parts like North East is concerned, I don’t think we are required to go into all that given the statement made (by the SG). We are at present dealing only with Article 370,” the bench noted.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul also added that there is no similarity between Article 370 and Article 371, and there is no reason to mention Article 371 in the arguments in the hearing on abrogation of Article 370.
After this, the apex court dismissed the plea by Manish Tewari on behalf of a client, adding that the reference to the Constitution Bench is confined to Article 370. “The applicant urged that apart from the provisions contained in part 21 of the Constitution pertaining to the state of J&K. there are special provisions governing the North-East in the same part. Since it has been submitted (by Tewari’s client) that the interpretation should be placed by this court on Article 370 could possibly impact the other provisions, the solicitor general, on specific instructions, has said that Union of India has no intention to touch or effect any of the special provision applicable to the North-East or any other part of India,” the court stated.
“Reference to the Constitution bench is confined to Article 370. There is no commonality of interest between the issues which sought to be addressed by the intervenor and the issues raised in the reference to this constitution bench. In any event, a statement which has been made on behalf of the Union government would allay any apprehension in that regard. We therefore close the application which stands disposed of,” the top court said while dismissing the plea.
The bench during the hearing emphasized the distinction between Articles 370 and 371, noting that the petitioner had disputed the former’s claim that it was temporary in nature and had instead interpreted it as permanent.
The CJI continued by stating that while the court is concerned about the overall effects of a state’s abrogation to the UT, it would be incorrect to express concern specifically for the Northeast.
BJP’s Amit Malviya meanwhile slammed Congress’ Tewari and stated that “Congress won’t stop at anything till they burn down India.” He said that Congress was full of hate for PM Modi and India. “Another instance of Congress’s hate for Prime Minister Modi and India crossing all limits. Congress’s Manish Tewari, while arguing in the Supreme Court against the revocation of #Article370, raised the specter of Article 371 being scrapped too. The argument wasn’t just misplaced and misleading but also fraught with grave risk of stoking unrest in the North East,” he tweeted.
Another instance of Congress’s hate for Prime Minister Modi and India crossing all limits.
— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) August 23, 2023
Congress’s Manish Tewari, while arguing in the Supreme Court against revocation of #Article370, raised the spectre of Article 371 being scrapped to.o. The argument wasn’t just misplaced…
A 5-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution which conferred special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
It is notable that while Article 370 gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, which included a separate constitution and separate laws on a large number of subjects, Article 371 only grants some temporary, transition and special provisions to some states in the country. Ranging from Article 371-A to Article 371-J, this Article of the constitution gives special provisions for the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka.
