In a highly anticipated moment, the Supreme Court is poised to announce its verdict on the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The decision revolves around the legality of the Presidential Order dated August 5, 2019, and carries immense significance in India’s legal and political history.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, will deliver the much-awaited verdict. The bench has been tasked with addressing a series of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370.
After an extensive 16-day hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on September 5, 2023. The culmination of over three months of deliberation will unfold as the court announces its decision, scheduled to commence at 10:30 am.
Arguments by Petitioners:
Temporary to Permanent: Petitioners argue that Article 370, initially a temporary provision, became permanent after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957.
Constitutional Role: The contention is that the Centre overstepped by assuming the role of the Constituent Assembly to repeal Article 370.
Lack of State Government Concurrence: Highlighting the absence of the state government’s concurrence during the president’s rule as a critical issue.
Governor’s Authority: Questions raised about the governor’s authority to dissolve the legislative assembly without the Council of Ministers’ advice.
Constitutional Means: Petitioners maintain that the means used to abrogate Article 370 were constitutionally impermissible.
Arguments by Centre:
Legal Process Followed: The Centre asserts that all constitutional procedures were correctly followed, with no violation of law.
No Constitutional Fraud: Refuting allegations of any “constitutional fraud” in the abrogation process.
Presidential Power: The government argues that the president, in concurrence with the state government, has the power to amend the constitution regarding Jammu and Kashmir.
Negative Impact of Article 370: The potential adverse effects of retaining Article 370 are cited as a justification.
Merger for Integration: The Centre emphasizes the necessity of the merger for the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India.
Temporary Nature of Article 370: Stressing that Article 370 was not permanent but temporary.
Key Questions Posed by the Five-Judge Constitution Bench:
Did Article 370 become a permanent provision in the Constitution?
Does Parliament have the power to amend Article 370 if it becomes a permanent provision?
Is there a restriction on Parliament to enact legislation on an item from the State List?
How long can the Union Territory exist?
Who can recommend the abrogation of Article 370 in the absence of a Constituent Assembly?
Legal Representatives:
For the Petitioners: Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhawan, Dushyant Dave, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Zafar Shah.
For the Centre: Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s verdict, the outcome will shape the future trajectory of Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status.
