The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver a crucial verdict today, on the constitutional validity of the Centre’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and its subsequent bifurcation into two Union Territories. This highly anticipated judgment, expected to address several complex legal and constitutional issues, comes from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant.
The petitioners, including political parties like the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, have raised critical questions about the permanence of Article 370. They argue that the Article, which provided special privileges to Jammu and Kashmir, assumed a permanent character following the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in 1957. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, contended that Parliament lacked the authority to abrogate Article 370, as the special procedure for repealing or modifying the Article was only available under clause (3) of Article 370 and none other.
The petitioners further argued that the decision to convert a state into a Union Territory without the consent of the state was “unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and unprecedented.” They emphasized that any alteration to Article 370 could have been done only by the J&K Constituent Assembly. Once the Constituent Assembly lapsed in 1957 without providing any mechanism in the J&K constitution to amend, alter, or abrogate Article 370, it was argued that it assumed a permanent character.
Conversely, the Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and others, argued that the removal of Article 370 was essential to preserve the integrity of the nation and for the uniform application of the Indian Constitution to all states. The Centre maintained that Article 370 was inserted in the Constitution to address an externally induced situation in J&K during 1947-50 and should have been abrogated in 1957 after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly.
During the hearings, the Supreme Court questioned the petitioners’ claim about the permanence of Article 370 and who could recommend its revocation. The Court also inquired how the Article became permanent after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. The bench observed that it was difficult to accept the argument that neither the assembly nor Parliament could touch Article 370, even when the latter had the power to amend all provisions except the basic structure provisions.
The Centre contended that its decisions were taken within the legal framework and argued that mainstreaming Jammu and Kashmir had reduced terrorism and provided a level playing field. It also stated that Article 370 deprived the people of J&K of many fundamental rights, including the right to education.
The verdict is expected to have significant implications for the political and legal landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. It will address the contentious issue of whether the Centre’s move to scrap Article 370 and bifurcate the state into two Union Territories was constitutionally valid, a decision that has been awaited with bated breath by various stakeholders in the region and across the nation.