Wouldn't it have to? It does stand for JavaScript Object Notation after all.
This question seems reasonably sincere enough that you could attempt to answer it rather than downvote it.
That's where the idea came from. But it's now a completely standalone standard, with its own grammar, that just happens to be compatible with a subset of ES.
Even that's not technically true. You can represent things in JSON that can't be represented in ES object literals. There's a proposal in Stage 3 to fix that though: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-json-superset
It wouldn't... but it could open the door to updating the standard.