Context: By focusing more on the particular concept of sovereignty ‘which requires no subordination to another body’, the Court ends up refusing to recognize the shared sovereignty model of Article 370.

The Concept of Constitutional Monism

• In a parliamentary federal democracy, constitutional monism is a concept that pertains to the relationship between law at the centre and law enacted by states within a particular legal system.

• It is a perspective that emphasises the unity of the legal order, asserting that both law at the centre and states’ law form a single, integrated legal system.

• In constitutional monism, there is a hierarchy of norms, with the constitution (or a constitutional document) at the apex.

• According to this perspective, law passed by the parliament is considered an integral part of the domestic legal system and is automatically incorporated at the level of states without the need for specific legislation.

• And, if there is a conflict between law passed by the parliament and any law enacted by a state of the union, the former prevails, as it is an inherent part of the national legal order.

Constitutional Monism and Federalism

• Constitutional Monism Eroding Federal Powers: The Supreme Court's unanimous decision on Article 370 reflects constitutional monism, undermining the federal distribution of powers.

• Neglect of J&K's Shared Sovereignty Model: Article 370's shared sovereignty model, as envisioned by J&K's Constituent Assembly, is neglected in favor of Union-centric sovereignty.

• Binary View of Sovereignty: The Court's binary view of sovereignty oversimplifies the complex federal dynamics, setting a concerning precedent for federalism in India.

Contingency of Presidential Power under Article 370

• Dismissing Permanence: The Court's monist approach is evident in its interpretation of Clause 3 of Article 370, rejecting the idea of its permanence.

• Unbridled Presidential Power: By asserting unbridled power for the President, the Court overlooks the contingent nature of Clause 3 on the Constituent Assembly's recommendation.

• Erosion of Checks and Balances: This interpretation weakens the checks and balances inherent in constitutional democracy, challenging the essence of federalism.

The Verdict Has Potential Impact on Federalism

• The adoption of a monist interpretation poses a significant risk to federalism in India.

• By neglecting the nuanced distribution of powers envisaged by Article 370, there is a potential erosion of State powers, undermining the delicate balance between the Union and State governments.

• This erosion could lead to a concentration of authority at the central level, altering the federal fabric envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

The Verdict Also Challenges the Constitutional Sovereignty

• The monist view does not just impact federalism; it also challenges the constitutional sovereignty.

• When the courts favour a monist perspective, it harms the deliberate framework set by the J&K Constituent Assembly for state sovereignty.

• This change has wider effects on the constitutional system and the independence of states in the Indian Union.

The Court Neglected State's Views on its Future

• The Court's view, which places Parliament as the ultimate authority representing the entire nation, neglects the significance of a state's views on its future.

• Even if a state's views may not be binding on Parliament, the respect for a state's popular sovereignty should not be dismissed.

• The Court's stance is seen as worrying where historical thresholds for reorganisation were higher.

• The monist reading not only upholds the abrogation of Article 370 but also diminishes the voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, raising concerns about the impact on federalism.

Popular Sovereignty

• State Views on Reorganization:The judgment diminishes the significance of an individual state's views on reorganization, favoring Parliament's authority.

• The Court's monist perspective subordinates the popular sovereignty of J&K's people to the broader national sovereignty, eroding state autonomy.

• Alarming Shift:This shift in dynamics is particularly alarming for J&K, where historically, the threshold for reorganization was higher than in other states.

Conclusion

• There are certain concerns such as potential threats to federalism, the erosion of state powers, and the implications for constitutional democracy, arising from the Court's monist reading of the Constitution.

• A monist approach, when applied to a complex federal structure like India's, can have far-reaching consequences, not only in legal terms but also in shaping the political and democratic landscape of the nation.