India rejected the statement issued by the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on the Indian Supreme Court’s judgement upholding the 2019 revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution.
“It is both ill-informed and ill-intended,” Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said on Wednesday while referring to the OIC’s statement.
ALSO READ: Article 370 verdict highlights: Govt plans to introduce 33% women’s quota in J-K assembly today
“That OIC does so at the behest of a serial violator of human rights and an unrepentant promoter of cross-border terrorism makes its action even more questionable. Such statements only undermine OIC’s credibility,” he added.
The OIC General Secretariat expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s verdict related to Article 370 on Tuesday. The Supreme Court had on Monday upheld the Centre’s August 5, 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370.
Following the verdict, the General Secretariat reaffirmed its solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
It said in a statement on Tuesday, “The General Secretariat, about the decisions and resolutions of the Islamic Summit and the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers related to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, reiterates its call to reverse all illegal and unilateral measures taken since 5 August 2019 aimed at changing the internationally-recognized disputed status of the territory.”
“The General Secretariat reaffirms its solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their quest for the right of self-determination and reiterates its call on the international community to enhance its efforts to resolve the issue of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions,” the OIC’s statement added.
Article 370: What Supreme Court said
The Supreme Court said on Monday that Article 370 of the Constitution was only temporary. The decision by Supreme Court implies that Article 370 cannot be restored in Jammu and Kashmir.
A 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 court said Article 370 was enacted due to wartime conditions in the State and was meant to serve a transitional purpose. It also held that the State of Jammu and Kashmir did not retain an element of sovereignty when it joined the Union of India.
The bench added, “In view of the statement we do not find it necessary to determine whether the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir is permissible under Article 3. However. we uphold the validity of the decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh in view of Article 3(a) read with Explanation I which permits forming a Union Territory by separation of a territory from any State.”
Restoration of Statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible, it added. The Constitution bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution and bifurcating the state into two Union Territories.
(With inputs from agencies)
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it’s all here, just a click away! Login Now!
Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Published: 13 Dec 2023, 04:20 PM IST