• UGI USER
  • Dec 12, 2023
  • 16 Likes
  • 0 Comments

SUPREME COURT’S SCRUTINY ON EMERGENCY DECLARATION

Why in the News?

  • The Supreme Court highlights the need for a “reasonable nexus” between the President’s actions post-State Emergency declaration under Article 356.
  • Petitioners question if the Emergency in Jammu and Kashmir aimed at altering its special status and bifurcating the state.
Source: The Hindu

Timeline of Events

  • Crisis Unfolding: Initiated with Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s resignation in June 2018, leading to subsequent proclamations by the Governor and the President’s invocation of Article 356 in December 2018.
  • Constitutional Amendments: President’s order in August 2019 applied Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, paving the way for altering Article 370 and reorganizing the state.

Judicial Review and Prima Facie Case

  • Court’s Observations: Actions during the State Emergency subject to judicial scrutiny.
  • Establishing Mala Fide Actions: Petitioners must initially demonstrate evidence of mala fide or extraneous use of power by the President.

Burden of Proof

  • Onus on Challenging Party: The burden rests on the challenger to establish prima facie evidence of misuse of power.
  • Shifting Onus: If established, the onus then shifts to the Centre to justify the nexus between actions and the Emergency proclamation.

This case in the Supreme Court explores the critical connection between the President’s actions post the State Emergency declaration in Jammu and Kashmir, shedding light on the onus of proof and the requirement for a reasonable connection between the Emergency and subsequent legislative actions.