Majority In The Valley Never Had Faith In Indian Constitution: Kashmiri Pandits' Organisation Moves SC Supporting Abrogation Of Article 370

Youth 4 Panun Kashmir, founded under the aegis of Panun Kashmir, an organisation of Kashmiri Hindus founded in 1990 after the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court seeking the dismissal of all petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of India.

The intervention application is filed through Advocate-on-Record Siddharth Praveen Acharya for Youth 4 Panun Kashmir which is represented by Vithal Chowdhary, a victim of the mass exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits. The application states that "The majority of Kashmir valley never had faith in the Indian Constitution and Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution helped them in the separatist movement." The application says, "On the contrary, Article 370 and Article 35A became a major reason for eroding the sentiment of Indian identity within the Kashmir Valley."

Chowdhary further states in his application that Article 370 and Article 35A were the biggest reason for the lack of psychological integration of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir (from now on referred to as ‘State’) with the rest of India and became a breeding ground for separatist ideas leading to the ethnic cleansing of innocent Kashmiri Pandits. It has also been highlighted that since the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of India on 6th August 2019, targeted killings of Hindus have increased in the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir reaching up to 40 killings of the minority Hindus.

"The reason behind the decision of the Government to abrogate the Jammu and Kashmir Re-organization Act, 2019, is correct and has been done completely within the ambit of the Constitution of India", reads the application. It also states that "The erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir had become vulnerable to both external aggression and internal rebellion, and Article 370 and Article 35A had significantly contributed to the hostile elements' ability to sow internal unrest and facilitate external aggression", the application says.

The application filed seeking the dismissal of all petitions challenging the vires of the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A inter alia highlights the following grounds:

A. That Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution were in violation of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution.

B. Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution were complex problems with implications for history, the constitution, politics, society, economy, psychology and human conditions.

C. Every regional and cultural entity would want an equivalent of Article 370 and Article 35A or autonomy to counteract the dominance of the Kashmiris if Article 370 and Article 35A are kept or the topic of autonomy is overplayed.

D. Both Article 370 and Article 35A were by nature discriminatory against the Kashmiri Pandits and the rest of the minorities in the erstwhile State and were in absolute violation of the pillars of the Indian Constitution.

E. Article 370 and Article 35A were in complete violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, on this aspect the application states that "The citizens of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir had dual citizenship, i.e., citizenship of India as well as separate citizenship of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir, the citizenship of a State is clearly not the characteristic of the Indian Constitution of India" and also that "As per the erstwhile State laws if a citizen-woman of the erstwhile State married a person of any other State of India, the Jammu & Kashmiri citizenship of such citizen-woman would to exist. In contrast, if a citizen-woman of erstwhile State marries a person from Pakistan, such person would get the citizenship of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir."

Highlighting the enforcement of the Ranbir Penal Code instead of the Indian Penal Code, the application states that "The residents of the State have been unwelcoming of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Versus Union of India wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decriminalized homosexuality and has clearly stated that the same is not an offence. However, this verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not been welcomed by the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir for the very reason that the Indian Penal Code was not applicable in the State and therefore, any interpretation or amendment to the Indian Penal Code would not apply to the residents of the erstwhile State."

The application seeks the following reliefs: "a. The acknowledgement of this Hon’ble Court regarding Jammu and Kashmir State Government’s and Union Government’s failure to understand and in any manner address the plight and hardships faced by the now exiled Kashmiri Pandit Community, through the implementation of Article 370 of the Constitution for the period between 1956-2019. b. The acknowledgment from this Hon’ble Court regarding the violence exercised upon the Kashmiri Pandit Community between the period of 1989-1991 as a direct or indirect consequence of unimpeded powers provided to the Jammu & Kashmir State Government vide Article 370 of the Constitution. c. Any other acknowledgment that this Court deems necessary that ensures recording of the trials and tribulations faced by the Kashmiri Pandit Community in Jammu & Kashmir and the exodus thereof as a matter of history. d. To dismiss all petitions challenging the vires of the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of India and Jammu and Kashmir Re-Organization Act, 2019 and declare the same as valid and constitutional."

The Supreme Court will commence day-to-day hearings from August 2 on the batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, which passed several procedural directions, fixed July 27 as the deadline for filing of written submissions and convenience compilations by different parties. The bench also comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant said that hearing on the batch of petitions will be held on a day-to-day basis except on Mondays and Fridays, which are days for hearing miscellaneous matters in the Apex Court.

Cause Title: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution