In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Union Government’s decision to abrogate Article 370, a move that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Former Chief Minister of the region, Ghulam Nabi Azad, expressed disappointment over the verdict, stating that the people of Jammu and Kashmir were “not happy” with the decision.
Azad, who is currently heading the Democratic Progressive Azad Party (DPAP), voiced concerns about the potential consequences of removing Article 35A, particularly regarding the unemployment scenario. He highlighted that the annulment of Article 35A could lead to an influx of job applicants from other parts of the country, making it challenging for locals to secure employment.
“We are disappointed over the Supreme Court verdict. This was our last hope…I think people of Jammu and Kashmir, whether in Kashmir or Jammu, are not happy,” Azad conveyed to reporters during a press conference.
Azad emphasized the sentimental link that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have with Article 370 and 35A, describing it as a “historical” connection for the region. He pointed out that Article 35A was incorporated into the state’s constitution to prevent outsiders from purchasing land and acquiring employment, citing decisions made by Maharaja Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler.
According to Azad, the removal of Article 35A could have adverse effects on the region’s economy, making lands more expensive and increasing competition for jobs. He noted the economic reliance on tourism in Jammu and Kashmir, stating that unemployment might rise as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Azad also criticized the central government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 in August, labeling it a “mistake” and suggesting that it was done hastily without consulting political parties in Jammu and Kashmir.
Despite the disappointment, Azad welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date for assembly polls, viewing it as a positive step. He expressed optimism that the restoration of statehood would follow the elections, considering it a favorable outcome for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, justified the decision by stating that Article 370 was a temporary provision. The court rejected arguments that the Union government couldn’t take actions of irreversible consequences during Presidential rule.
As the region processes this legal outcome, the impact on Jammu and Kashmir’s political and economic landscape remains uncertain.
