Scrapping Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, valid: Supreme Court
Over four years after Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into the two Union territories of J&K and Ladakh following the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court said that the President’s exercise of power was not malafide.
Pronouncing the verdict, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench said the President’s 2019 order to scrap Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was valid.
The Supreme Court said a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had a unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370.
The Supreme Court, while pronouncing the verdict on the abrogation of Article 370 on Monday, said elections should be held in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024 and statehood shall be restored as soon as possible.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) said that every move by the Centre cannot be challenged. He said that the court cannot rule on the validity of the government order and that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India.
The Supreme Court said that Article 370 is a temporary provision and to serve as an interim process.
The Supreme Court held that Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the State. “Textual reading also indicates that Article 370 is a temporary provision,” said the CJI reading the judgement.
The Supreme Court said that Jammu and Kashmir doesn’t hold internal sovereignty. “The deal by Maharaja Hari Singh said the Indian Constitution is final. Jammu and Kashmir had no sovereignty when it joined India.”
“Article 370 doesn’t freeze Jammu and Kashmir integration. Article 370 is for integration and not disintegration.”
The Supreme Court, on Monday, delivered its verdict on the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370, which had accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, delivered the verdict. This bench was tasked with deciding on a series of petitions that challenged the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370.
The Supreme Court began hearing pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 from August 2, 2023 and the court reserved its verdict in the matter on September 5.
Petitioners had argued that Article 370 became permanent after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957, which was necessary for any changes to the article. Petitioners contended that the Centre should not have assumed the role of the Constituent Assembly to repeal Article 370.
The Centre, however, insisted that all constitutional procedures were followed correctly, and it refuted allegations of any “constitutional fraud” in the abrogation process.
Meanwhile, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and and National Conference (NC) leader Omar Abdullah on Monday claimed that they have been put under house arrest, hours before the Supreme Court verdict.
However, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha refuted the claims that Mufti and Omar Abdullah had been put under house arrest and called it “baseless”.
In a tweet, the PDP said the police had sealed the doors of Mufti’s residence before the Article 370 verdict was announced.
Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhawan, Dushyant Dave, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Zafar Shah were among those who represented the petitioners.
On the other hand, representing the Centre, were Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, and V Giri.