Chicago – March 08, 2025
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud defended his stance on Article 370, saying it was always intended as a “transitional provision” in the Constitution.
He was questioned whether 75 years was too short a period to abrogate such a provision, emphasising that it was meant to fade away and merge with the Constitution over time.
Chandrachud was responding to BBC journalist Stephen Sackur’s question in an interview about legal scholars’ stance on Article 370 led by the Modi government.
A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chandrachud, on December 13 unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019 showing his unwavering support to PM Modi.
This decision led to the reorganisation of the full-fledged state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories and the removal of its special privileges while many lost their basic human right.
Chandrachud was asked, “Article 370 was part of the Constitution, which guaranteed the special status, the autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, now that had been out the place of the very inception of the modern state of India. You agreed that the government had a right to abrogate Article 370. Many legal scholars were deeply disappointed with your decision because they felt you had failed to uphold the Constitution. Explained to me why you took the decision you did.”
Stephen Sackur also questioned how legal scholars felt that the decision failed to uphold the Constitution.
Chandrachud explained that as the author of one of the judgments in the Article 370 case, a judge must refrain from defending or critiquing their own decisions. He clarified that Article 370, originally part of transitional provisions in the Constitution, was meant to eventually fade away and merge with the rest of the Constitution.
“Since I was the author of one of the judgments in the case, a judge by their very nature of profession has some restraints on either defending or critiquing their judgments… Article 370 of the Constitution when it was introduced into the Constitution at the birth of the Constitution was part of a chapter which is titled ‘transitional arrangments’ or ‘transitional provisions’. It was later renamed as ‘temporary and transitional provisions’, and therefore at the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was that what was transitional would have to fade away and have to merge with the overall text, the context of the Constitution. Now is 75 plus years too less for abrogating a transitional provision,” replied Chandrachud.
He said the Supreme Court acknowledged that if the elected government decides to abrogate a provision meant to be transitional, it is acceptable.
