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

SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT ON ARTICLE 370

Why in the News?

  • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution.
Source: Th Indian Express

Upholding Presidential Power

  • Reorganisation Outcome: Division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, and removal of privileges under Article 370.
  • Confirmation by Bench: Unanimous agreement on the President’s authority to nullify Article 370 via a notification.

Rationale and Presidential Authority

  • Unilateral Presidential Action: Court’s affirmation of the President’s capability to issue a notification abolishing Article 370 based on “special circumstances.”
  • Limitation of Court’s Role: Court clarified its inability to contest the President’s decision regarding the existence of these circumstances.

Historical Context and Integration Efforts

  • Integration Efforts: Acknowledgment of a 70-year gradual collaboration between the Centre and Jammu and Kashmir towards constitutional integration.
  • Permanent Status Debate: Court dismissed the idea of Article 370 acquiring permanent status post the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957.

Significance and Constitutional Integration

  • Purpose of Article 370: Highlighted as enhancing constitutional integration rather than causing disintegration.
  • Revocation Impact: Full application of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370.

Conclusion

  • Non-binding Recommendation: Court’s stance on the non-binding nature of the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation regarding Article 370’s revocation.
  • Valid Presidential Action: Recognition of the President’s authority in nullifying Article 370, constituting a valid exercise of power.

Key Aspects of the SC Judgment

Source: The Indian Express

Concurrent Judgments:

  • Three concurrent judgments delivered by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant, and a concurring opinion by Justice SK Kaul. Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurred with both.

Verdict addressed:

  • Validity of Presidential order
  • Imposition and extension of President’s rule in Dec 2018
  • Constitutionality of J&K Reorganisation Act, dividing the state into two Union Territories (UT).

Validity of President’s Rule:

  • Court didn’t rule on its validity as not challenged by petitioners.
  • Emphasized limits on Union’s power during this period, rejecting arguments challenging irreversible actions.

J&K’s Sovereignty Clarification:

  • Affirmed J&K lacked internal sovereignty post-accession to India.
  • Highlighted absence of sovereignty references in J&K Constitution, confirming its integration with India.

Article 370’s Temporariness:

  • Ruled Article 370 as temporary with textual evidence and marginal notes indicating its transitory nature.
  • Stressed it was part of a gradual process of constitutional integration.

President’s Powers and Constitutional Order:

  • Upheld President Kovind’s move issuing Constitutional Order (CO) 273, revoking J&K’s special status.
  • Stated Constituent Assembly’s recommendation wasn’t binding on the President.

Status of Ladakh and Reorganisation Act:

  • Didn’t determine the validity of J&K’s division into a UT.
  • Upheld Ladakh’s separation as a UT, considering Solicitor General’s submission on statehood restoration.

Court Orders:

  • Directed Election Commission for J&K assembly elections by Sep 30, 2024.
  • Called for earliest restoration of statehood.
  • Justice SK Kaul suggested a “Truth and Reconciliation Committee” for addressing human rights violations.