The Supreme Court’s live explanation of the verdict on the abrogation of Article 370: Today, the Court delivered its judgment on the Union government’s 2019 action to modify Article 370 of the Constitution, which terminated the special status previously granted to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. Affirming the constitutional validity of the order that annulled Article 370, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, concluded after 16 days of hearings and the consideration of 23 petitions.
CJI DY Chandrachud clarified that Jammu and Kashmir lost its internal sovereignty upon accession to India. The Court found no apparent evidence to suggest that the President’s 2019 orders were made in bad faith or as an improper exercise of power. While acknowledging the 2019 reorganization of the erstwhile state into Union Territories as a temporary measure, the Court directed the Center to work towards reinstating statehood and conducting Legislative Assembly elections.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kaul recommended the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in J&K to recognize alleged violations committed by the state and its agents in the region. The SC ruled in favor of the government on three specific questions.
Justice Kaul’s statement in his concluding remarks on the Article 370 verdict–
In a concluding note he referred to as a “sentimental epilogue,” Justice Kaul highlighted that the Kashmir valley bears a historical weight and possesses a social backdrop that cannot be separated considering the changing constitutional status of the area.
“We, the people of Jammu and Kashmir, are at the heart of the debate,” Justice Kaul said, he also added that Kashmiri people have carried the burden of being victims of conflict for many decades.
In the groundbreaking verdict, the bench delivered three separate judgments. The first, authored by CJI Chandrachud alongside Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, outlined the following conclusions:
- Article 370 was an aspect of asymmetric federalism and not indicative of sovereignty.
- Following the execution of the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the issuance of the Proclamation on November 25, 1949, the State of Jammu and Kashmir lost all elements of sovereignty.
- The President was not obligated to seek agreement from the Union or state governments. The utilization of power by the President under Article 370(1)(d) to release CO 272 was not driven by malicious intent. Additionally, the President, under Article 370(3), possessed the unilateral authority to issue a notification that nullifies Article 370.
