In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of the Union Government's decision to abrogate Article 370, which bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The apex court also held that Article 370 of the Constitution was a temporary arrangement and the President had the power to revoke it.
The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and composed of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, also upheld the validity of the decision to bifurcate the state into bifurcated the State into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
There were three judgements in the matter- one by CJI DY Chandrachud for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant. The second was a concurring opinion authored by Justice SK Kaul. Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurred with both the judgements.
"The erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states of the country," the CJI said, adding that "all provisions of the Indian Constitution can be applied to J-K." "We hold the exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution as valid," the CJI said.
He said that Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India and this is evident from Articles 1 and 370, adding that there was a clear absence in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to the reference of sovereignty.
"Article 370, which was abrogated on August 5, 2019, was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the erstwhile state,: Justice Chandrachud said. "The princely state had become an integral part of India and this is evident from Articles 1 and 370," the CJI said.
In the order, the CJI said 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 Constituent Assembly of J&K was never intended to be a permanent body," the CJI stated,
Holding that the exercise of Presidential power was valid, the CJI said that the concurrence of the State govt was not required to apply all provisions of the Constitution using Article 370(1)(d). So the President taking the concurrence of the Union Govt was not malafide.
The court also directed that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the J&K Assembly by September 30. It also stated that the restoration of statehood shall take place as soon as possible.
The Centre had asserted during the hearing that the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory is only temporary and that it will be restored to statehood, while Ladakh will remain a Union Territory.
In his concurring judgment, Justice Khanna said the purpose of Article 370 was to slowly bring Jammu and Kashmir at par with other Indian states. He directed the setting up of a truth-and-reconciliation commission to probe human rights violations both by the state and non-state actors.
Justice SK Kaul, in his judgment, recommended the setting up of an impartial "Truth and Reconciliation" committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation.
