The Supreme Court on Monday said there are no reasons to refer a batch of pleas, challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 on August 5 last year, to a larger seven-judge bench. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana pronounced the order.
The apex court had on January 23 reserved its order on the issue of whether the batch of pleas would be referred to a larger seven-judge bench.
Opposing the plea, the Centre had said that abrogation of provisions of Article 370, which granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, has become a "fait accompli", leaving the sole option to accept the change. NGO People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association and an intervenor have sought referring the matter to a larger bench.
Legal arguments
The petitioners have sought reference to a larger bench on the ground that two judgements of apex court—Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 and Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1970—which dealt with the issue of Article 370 are in direct conflict each other and therefore the current bench of five judges could not hear the issue. 'Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir' was a petition against Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950, which the petitioner claimed was unconstitutionally enacted by the son of Maharaja Hari Singh—Yuvraj Karan Singh. Then the Supreme Court had held that Maharaja Hari Singh's legislative powers were not restricted by the Article. In Sampat Prakash vs Jammu and Kashmir—challenging some presidential orders that were passed under Article 370(1)—the court further held that “Article 370 never ceased to be operative and there could be no challenge on this ground to the validity of the orders passed by the president in exercise of the powers conferred by it.”
While the petitioners had argued that there were some conflicts in the two judgments, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had said that they were not related to each other and dealt with different issues. He had said that the verdict in Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir did not deal with Article 370 rather with the question whether the Maharaja had the legislative power or not. While referring to the verdict in Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir, Venugopal had said though it dealt with some aspects of Article 370, it was not in direct conflict with the verdict in the Kaul case and therefore the present issue should not be referred to a larger bench.
-Inputs from PTI
