Days after the Supreme Court of India’s voluble judgment on the August 2019 presidential orders, there has been considerable, and excellent, dissection of its validation of the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, and its cursory handling of Parliament’s demotion and division of the State to two Union Territories.
Much of the commentary has dealt with the judgment’s implications for the rest of the country, which are far-reaching. It undermines the rights of States vis-à-vis the Union even on critical issues such as statehood and division, grants the President far larger powers over States than earlier envisaged, and allows long-term political and territorial decisions to be made under limited-term emergency conditions such as President’s rule.
There are three other key elements which have, however, been less discussed: what the verdict means on the ground for Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, what it tells us about how the Court sees peace and security, and what it implies for the fundament of democracy in India. Back in 1953-55, the States Reorganization Commission held widespread public consultations during which villages expressed their preference for which unit to belong. This judgment negates even the right to consultation of the State’s elected representatives.
