The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver a landmark verdict on December 11 on the contentious issue of the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and its subsequent restructuring into two Union territories in August 2019. This significant ruling will be issued by a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai, and Surya Kant.
According to people aware of the matter, CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul have authored two separate judgments for the bench, highlighting the complexity and depth of the legal issues involved.
The bench, after an extensive 16-day hearing, reserved its verdict on September 5. The hearing, which began on August 2 after a hiatus of over three years, was marked by intense deliberations and arguments. The last listing of the matter dates back to March 2020, when another five-judge bench declined to refer the matter to a larger bench. This referral was sought on the grounds of alleged conflicts between two previous judgments of the apex court.
During the final leg of the proceedings, petitioners emphasized the permanent nature of Article 370 and the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In contrast, the Centre and other respondents argued that the provision was always intended to be temporary and that its abrogation represented a crucial step towards the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India.
The Centre, responding to the court’s query, stated on August 31 that elections to the legislative assembly for the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir could take place at a time deemed fit by the state and central election commissions. However, it declined to specify an exact timeframe for restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
Several petitioners raised the issue of the requirement of consent from the constituent assembly for the abrogation of Article 370. Others questioned the validity of the President’s rule in effect during the abrogation. Some pleas referred to the Instrument of Accession, while others cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling, which observed that Article 370 had acquired a status of permanence.
Many petitions also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, which led to the bifurcation of the state into two Union territories from October 30, 2019. These petitions argued that the Centre did not possess the authority to reorganize a state into two Union territories.
Countering these arguments, the Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, maintained that Article 370 was not a symbol of any special status for Jammu and Kashmir but was merely a temporary arrangement in the process of its complete integration with the Union of India. They added that the Instrument of Accession, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947, was a political act without any legally enforceable commitments. The Centre asserted that Article 370 existed only to manage the situation temporarily and provide a wider timeframe for further integration and uniformity concerning Jammu and Kashmir.
This upcoming verdict from the Supreme Court is highly anticipated, as it will address several critical issues related to the constitutional and political status of Jammu and Kashmir, a region that has been at the heart of numerous debates and discussions in India’s contemporary history.