- A Supreme Court Constitution Bench unanimously supported the President’s ability to repeal Article 370 in August 2019, resulting in the restructuring of the full-fledged state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories and the deprivation of its unique privileges.
Key Issues and Court’s Findings
[A] On the Sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir:
- Petitioners’ Claim: They maintained that, unlike other princely states, J&K preserved an element of sovereignty when it acceded to India in 1947.
- The Court noted that J&K was classified as a Part III state in the Indian Constitution, and Section 3 of J&K’s Constitution declared it to be an important part of India.
- Final Ruling: The Court ruled that J&K did not preserve sovereignty and that the integration process was ongoing, culminating in the Presidential proclamation under Article 370(3).
[B] Whether Article 370 is Temporary or Permanent:
- Petitioners advocated for the durability of Article 370, while others saw it as only transitory.
- Opinion of the Court: Both CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul agreed that Article 370 was a transitory measure.
[C] Legality of Abrogating Article 370:
- Process of Abrogation: On August 5, 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind issued CO 272, modifying Article 367 and renaming the “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” the “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.”
- The Court affirmed the procedure, with CJI Chandrachud declaring that following the dissolution of J&K’s Constituent Assembly, the President could have unilaterally repealed Article 370.
[D] Actions Under President’s Rule:
- The Union’s Actions Were Challenged: The challenge was to the amount of powers claimed under Article 356 (President’s Rule).
- Reference to the Bommai Decision: The Court held, citing the 1994 Bommai decision, that acts taken under the President’s administration must not be malicious or unreasonable.
Maintaining the Supremacy of the Centre (Union)
- Unilateral Actions of Parliament: According to the Court’s understanding, Parliament can modify a state’s position under the President’s control.
- Article 3 Citation: As the state was under President’s administration, the President forwarded the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to Parliament for comment.
- Validity of Executive Orders: The Court validated the executive orders using the Bommai judgement criteria, emphasising the necessity for proof of mala fides to challenge the acts.
@theend
- J&K’s important Status Is Reinstated: The Court decided unequivocally that J&K has always been an important part of India.
- Article 370 Was a transitory Provision: The verdict clarifies that Article 370 was a transitory provision.
- Union Power Expansion: The judgement has the potential to extend the Union’s powers under President’s authority, upsetting the federal balance.
- Precedent in Interpreting Union and State authorities: This decision establishes a major precedent in interpreting Union and state authorities, reflecting on the dynamics of Indian federalism.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/11/whats-article-370-what-to-know-about-india-top-court-verdict-on-kashmir