Supreme Court verdict on abrogation of article 370

The Supreme Court today (December 11) has upheld the decision to remove Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir. A constitutional bench of five judges heard the matter. Giving relief to the Central Government, the Supreme Court said that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. It has no internal sovereignty.

Some parties and others from Jammu and Kashmir had challenged in the Supreme Court. After 16 days of hearing in this case, the court had reserved its decision on September 5.

That historic day of 5th August 2019
On August 5, 2019, the Central Government had presented a bill in the Parliament to remove Article 370 of the Constitution from Jammu and Kashmir, after which it was approved, Article 370 was repealed.

Article 370 has now become history. The Supreme Court today (11 December) has upheld the decision to remove Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir. A constitutional bench of five judges heard the matter.

The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant has given the verdict on Article 370. Giving relief to the Central Government, the Supreme Court said that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. It has no internal sovereignty.

Main points of Supreme Court’s decision

1. First of all, CJI DY Chandrachud said that three decisions have been given by a bench of five judges on the issue of Article 370.
2. The CJI said that there is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of the President’s proclamation in Jammu and Kashmir as the petitioners have not challenged it.
3. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments that no irreversible action can be taken by the Center during President’s rule.
4. The CJI said that every decision taken by the Center on behalf of the state during President’s rule cannot be challenged.
5. Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty separate from other states in the country: CJI
6. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, this is clear from Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution: CJI
7. CJI says that Article 370 of the Constitution was temporary, the President’s power to abrogate it still exists.
8. The CJI said that Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to the war situation in the state.
9. The CJI said that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was never intended to be a permanent body.
10. When the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist, the special condition for which Article 370 was imposed also ceased to exist: CJI
11. We believe that the President seeking the consent of the Union and not the State is legitimate, all provisions of the Indian Constitution can be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir: CJI
12. CJI said, we direct that statehood should be restored in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible.
13. The Supreme Court said that we consider the exercise of the President’s power to issue a constitutional order to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution as legitimate.
14. CJI said, we maintain the validity of the decision to create the Union Territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir.
15. CJI said it was not necessary to follow the principle of consultation and cooperation in the exercise of presidential power
    Agreeing with the CJI, Justice SK Kaul said that the objective of Article 370 was to gradually bring Jammu and Kashmir at par with other Indian states.
16. Requirement of recommendation of J&K Constituent Assembly in Article 370 cannot be read in a manner that renders larger intention void: Justice Kaul.
17. Steps should be taken for early elections in Jammu and Kashmir. Elections should be held in Jammu and Kashmir by 30 September 2024.

What did CJI DY Chandrachud say?

During the hearing, the CJI said, “There was no mention of sovereignty in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. However, it is mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

The CJI said, “Article 370 was for constitutional integration with the Union of Jammu and Kashmir and it was not for dissolution and the President can declare that Article 370 has ceased to exist.

DY Chandrachud further said, “On Article 370, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court DY Chandrachud said that the decision to remove Article 370 will remain intact. He said that removing 370 is constitutionally correct. The President has the right to take decisions.”

The CJI said, “We direct that statehood be restored to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible.”

DY Chandrachud said, “We direct the Election Commission to take steps to ensure elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024.

What did Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul say?

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said, “I recommend the establishment of an impartial committee to investigate, report on human rights violations dating back to at least the 1980s, and recommend measures for restoration of peace.”

Sanjay Kishan Kaul further said, “An entire generation has grown up in an era of mistrust. The purpose of Article 370 was to gradually bring Jammu and Kashmir at par with other states of India.”

While delivering the judgement, Justice Khanna said, “Article 370 is an example of asymmetric federalism. It is not an indicator of the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir. He said that the removal of Article 370 will not end federalism.”

Hearing lasted for 16 days

Some parties and others from Jammu and Kashmir had challenged in the Supreme Court. After 16 days of hearing in this case, the court had reserved its decision on September 5.

That historic day of 5th August 2019
On August 5, 2019, the Central Government had presented a bill in the Parliament to remove Article 370 of the Constitution from Jammu and Kashmir, after which it was approved, Article 370 was repealed.