On Monday (December 11), the Supreme Court issued its decision on a slew of petitions challenging the abrogation of the Article 370 provisions.
The Supreme Court upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, saying it lacked "mala fide" intent. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud announced the decision on behalf of Justices Gavai and Surya Kant as well, stating that Article 370 of the Constitution is a provision that is temporary and that the president has the authority to revoke it.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud led a five-judge Constitution bench that rendered the decision. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant were the other members of the bench.
Following a 16-day hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its decision in the case on September 5.
Here are the major takeaways from the Supreme Court’s verdict:
- CJI D Y Chandrachud said that the five-judge bench made three judgements in the matter, and all were unanimous.
- Every decision taken by Union on behalf of the State is not subject to challenge, as this would eventually lead to chaos and uncertainty and would bring the administration of the State to a standstill, CJI said.
- The Supreme Court said the argument of petitioners that the Union government cannot take actions of irreversible consequences in the State during Presidential rule is not acceptable.
- The Supreme Court says it holds that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain an element of internal sovereignty after it acceded to India.
- SC held that Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India as evident from Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution of India.
- Reading out the judgment CJI said, SC holds Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the State. Textual reading also indicates that Article 370 is a temporary provision.
- The Supreme Court held that the power of the President to issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist subsists even after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly.
- The Supreme Court said Article 370 was meant for the constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union and it was not for disintegration.
- J&K does not have internal sovereignty different from other states of the country, the CJI said.
- The Constituent Assembly of J&K was never intended to be a permanent body, the CJI also said.
- The Supreme Court said the concurrence of the State government was not required to apply all provisions of the Constitution using Article 370(1)(d). So, the President of India taking the concurrence of the Union government was not mala fide.
- The SC also said that the recommendation of Constituent Assembly of J&K was not binding on the President of India.
- The SC held the president seeking concurrence of union and not state as valid, and all provisions of the Indian constitution can be applied to J&K.
- The restoration of statehood in Union Territory of J&K shall be done at the earliest, said the CJI.
- The Supreme Court upheld the reorganisation of Ladakh as a Union Territory.
(With agency inputs)