Shiv Sena MP Arvind Sawant welcomes SC verdict on Article 370
Dec 11, 2023
New Delhi [India], December 11 : Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. The article conferred a special status on Jammu and Kashmir.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court pointed out that Article 370 was meant as a temporary provision in the Constitution as it attests to the validity of the Central Government's 2019 decision.
However, Arvind Sawant was critical of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Central government, as he said that there had been no progress on the rehabilitation of Hindus or on ending terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. He also said that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have not been brought into the Indian mainstream yet.
"We welcome the decision but things like the rehabilitation of Hindus, putting an end to terrorism, and making the people of Jammu and Kashmir mainstream have not happened yet," Arvind Sawant said after the Supreme Court verdict on Article 370 came.
The five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant said, "It can be garnered from the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution that it is a temporary provision."
The apex court said Article 370 was enacted due to wartime conditions in the State and was meant to serve a transitional purpose.
"Article 370 was introduced to serve two purposes. First, the transitional purpose: to provide for an interim arrangement until the Constituent Assembly of the State was formed and could take a decision on the legislative competence of the Union on matters other than the ones stipulated in the Instrument of Accession and ratify the Constitution; and second, a temporary purpose: an interim arrangement in view of the special circumstances because of the war conditions in the State," the Constitution bench stated in its verdict.
