THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
Ranchi, Dec. 11: The Supreme Court today upheld the validity of the Modi Government’s decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370 of the Constitution.
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant held that the State of J&K had no internal sovereignty and the concurrence of the State Government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution to the State of J&K. It was held that Article 370 was a temporary provision.
The Court also issued a direction to the Election Commission of India to take steps to hold elections to the J&K Legislative Assembly by September 30, 2024.
The Apex Court had reserved the judgement in the matter on September 5 last after hearing it for 16 days.
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.
Validity of President’s Rule
The court held that it need not adjudicate on the validity of the presidential proclamations announcing the President’s Rule in the State since petitioners did not challenge the same. In any case, the court found that no material relief could be given as the President’s Rule was withdrawn in October 2019.
SC on Jammu and Kashmir status
The court stated that the Proclamation of Maharaja stated that the Constitution of India will supersede. With this, the court added that the paragraph of Instrument of Accession ceased to exist.
The court stated that the constitutional set-up did not indicate that Jammu and Kashmir retained sovereignty.
The CJI, in his judgement, stated that there was a clear absence in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to the reference of sovereignty and that the State of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India is evident from Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution of India.
Article 370 was a temporary provision
The CJI, in his judgement, stated that Article 370 was held to be a temporary provision on a historical reading, as per which it was a transitory and temporary provision. The court added that the power of the President under Article 370(3) to issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist subsists even after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly.
According to the judgement, the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President. It stated that the J&K Constituent Assembly was intended to be a temporary body. When the constituent assembly ceased to exist, the special condition for which 370 was introduced ceased to exist but the situation in the state remained and thus the article continued.
