In a comprehensive 476-page verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the scrapping of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices BR Gavai and Suryakant, presented a detailed opinion spanning 352 pages, with Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna contributing separate but concurring opinions.
The top court’s decision hinges on two primary legal principles: the impact of President’s Rule and the provision within Article 370 itself, granting the President the authority to annul its effect.
Here’s a breakdown of key observations and reasoning provided by the Supreme Court to support the validity of Article 370’s abrogation, the legality of Constitutional Orders 272 and 273, and the Jammu and Kashmir reorganisation Act.
Amendment of Article 370(3):
The court scrutinized the intricacies of amending Article 370(3), particularly focusing on Constitutional Order (C.O.) 272 issued on August 5, 2019.
While acknowledging the amendment’s invalidity due to the absence of the Legislative Assembly during President’s Rule, the court recognized the President’s unilateral power under Article 370(3) to notify its cessation.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized the importance of adhering to established procedures for amendments, stating that altering the recommending body from the Constituent Assembly to the Legislative Assembly deviated from the mandated process.
Power of President under Emergency:
The court acknowledged the delicate balance between federalism and the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356.
Even during emergencies, the court mandated that exercises of governmental power must adhere to constitutional constraints, ensuring the integrity of the amendment process.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud stressed the need for constitutional powers to operate within the framework of constitutional limitations.
Statehood of J&K:
The verdict directed the expeditious restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, with elections for the Legislative Assembly to be conducted by September 30, 2024.
While refraining from adjudicating on the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, the court directed the restoration of statehood at the earliest.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud acknowledged the complexity of converting a state into a Union Territory under Article 3 and emphasized future scrutiny of such conversions’ impact on federalism and democracy.
Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul emphasized that the conversion of a state into a Union Territory should be justified by strong and cogent grounds, aligning with constitutional provisions.
Non-Exploration of Statehood Issue:
The majority opinion opted not to delve into the statehood issue based on the Solicitor General’s assurance that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be restored.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud clarified that the Union Territory status of Ladakh would remain unaffected by Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood restoration.
The court found it unnecessary to determine the legality of the reorganisation under Article 3 given the assurance from the Solicitor General.
The Supreme Court’s meticulous analysis and rationale provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal underpinnings supporting the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir.
