More than four years after the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court of India, on Monday, unanimously upheld the actions of the Indian government. While much of the discourse around the judgment has focused on the question of statehood, it is important to remember that the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) was really at the heart of the matter.
To arrive at its conclusions, the Court employs a historical, textual, and structural interpretation of the Constitution of India, and all three approaches are deeply informed by constitutional monism. Here are three sites where the Court employs a monist reading of the Constitution, and why this sets a dangerous precedent for federalism in India.
