In a significant news, the Supreme Court of India is set to deliver its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) of its special status and reorganizing it into the Union territories of J&K and Ladakh.
This eagerly awaited judgment comes after a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, reserved its decision on September 5. The bench, which also includes Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, heard arguments from the petitioners, the Centre, and the J&K administration over a span of 16 days.
The batch of 23 petitions encompasses some that were filed prior to the momentous August 5, 2019, changes and challenge Section 35A of the Constitution, which conferred special legislative powers on J&K for its permanent residents.
Central to the petitioners’ argument is the claim that Article 370 was initially intended to be temporary, pending a decision by the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state. However, with the Constituent Assembly’s term expiring in 1957, they contend that the provision had effectively become permanent, impervious to any constitutional amendments.
The petitioners also assert that there was no formal merger agreement between the Union of India and the then Maharaja of J&K, only an Instrument of Accession (IoA). Thus, they argue that there was no surrender of sovereignty, and the IoA limited Parliament’s authority to make laws for the state, preserving the people’s autonomy.
Contrary to these claims, the Centre and the J&K administration assert that due process was scrupulously followed in effecting the changes. They counter the petitioners’ argument concerning Parliament’s authority to assume the role of the Constituent Assembly, stating that the term ‘Constituent Assembly’ in Article 370(3) should be interpreted as “Legislative Assembly.”
The government further maintains that during President’s Rule, the powers of the J&K Assembly were transferred to Parliament, thereby empowering it to legislate for the state. They underline the historical significance of the changes made to Article 370, emphasizing that these changes have ushered in unprecedented development, progress, security, and stability, which were often elusive under the old Article 370 regime.
Throughout the hearings, the Bench posed probing questions, especially regarding the petitioners’ assertion that the provision had become permanent and why it was placed in Part XXI of the Constitution, which is dedicated to “temporary, transitional, and special provisions.”
