India rejects OIC remark on Article 370 verdict: ‘Ill-informed and ill-intended’
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 said 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.
What Supreme Court had said in verdict?
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.
“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 it’s verdict
(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
