/newsdrum-in/media/agency_attachments/ipXwqL5g8EOqSkmkiZUK.png)
/newsdrum-in/media/member_avatars/zo41uS3Lku9fCtPnBfvR.jpg )
Follow Us/newsdrum-in/media/media_files/wzGOqugpl8M4QKJC9txI.jpg)
CJI reading his verdict on Article 370
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the government's decision to abrogate Article 370, which bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, and said steps should be taken to conduct elections in the assembly by September 30 next year.
Writing the judgement for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said Article 370 of the Constitution was a temporary provision and the president has the power to revoke it.
The apex court also upheld the validity of the decision to carve out the union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019.
The erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states of the country, he said.
"... all provisions of the Indian Constitution can be applied to J-K," the CJI said.
"We hold the exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of Constitution as valid," the CJI said.
Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India and this is evident from Articles 1 and 370, he said while pronouncing the judgment.
“The Constituent Assembly of J&K was never intended to be permanent body,” the CJI stated.
Article 370, which was abrogated on August 5, 2019, was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the erstwhile state, Justice Chandrachud said.
The princely state had become an integral part of India and this is evident from Articles 1 and 370, the CJI said.
The bench comprising CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Gavai, Surya Kant, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, assembled at 10.56 am to pronounce the three separate and concurring judgements Justices Kaul and Khanna wrote their judgments separately.
The apex court reserved its verdict in the matter on September 5 after a 16-day hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370.
The summary of the CJI's verdict is as under:
a) State of J&K does not retain any element of sovereignty. It does not have internal sovereignty. Article 370 a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty.
(b)Petitioners did not challenge Presidential Proclamation.
(c) Exercise of Presidents' power after the proclamation are subject to judicial review.
(d) Power of Parliament under Article 356(1) to exercise powers on behalf of State assembly is not restricted to law making powers.
(e) Article 370 is a temporary power.
(f) Power under Article 370(3) did not cease after the J&K Constituent assembly ceased to exist.
(g) Article 370 cannot be amended by exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d).
Para 2 of CO 272 amending Article 367 is ultra vires because it modifies Article 370 in effect.
(h) Exercise of power by the President under 370(1)(d) is not mala fide. President did not have to take concurrence of State and can act on Union's concurrence.
(i) Para 2 to CO 272 applying all provisions of Constitution to J&K is valid.
(j) President had the power to issue notification declaring that Article 370 ceases to operate without a recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly. It is a culmination of integration process
(k) The views of the State legislature under Article 3 proviso is recommendatory.
(l) SG stated that statehood of J&K will be restored except for the carving out of the UT of Ladakh. So this issue is left upon.
(m) We direct that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the J&K assembly by September 30. Restoration of statehood shall take place as soon as possible.
Incidents leading to the BIG SC verdict on Article 370
Amid the Parliament's push to Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.
The two amendment bills passed by the Lok Sabha related to J&K’s reorganisation would have faced hurdles in becoming acts pending SC’s verdict.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud is delivering the verdict. The other members of the bench are Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.
The apex court had on September 5 reserved its verdict in the matter after a marathon 16-day hearing.
The SC verdict will expedite the process of elections and restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir as soon as the bills become acts after their passage in Rajya Sabha.
Mehbooba put under 'house arrest' ahead of SC verdict on Article 370, claims her party
People's Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti was put under house arrest on Monday ahead of the Supreme Court's verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution that conferred a special status on Jammu and Kashmir, her party claimed.
"Even before Supreme Court judgement is pronounced, police has sealed the doors of the residence of PDP president @MehboobaMufti and put her under illegal house arrest," the party said in a post on X.
However, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha said the news of house arrest or arrest of anyone ahead of the Supreme Court verdict on Article 370 is "totally baseless".
Meanwhile, police did not allow journalists to gather near National Conference (NC) president Farooq Abdullah and vice-president Omar Abdullah's residence at Gupkar here, officials said.
A posse of police personnel was deployed at the entry point of Gupkar Road and journalists were not allowed anywhere near the residence of the NC leaders.
An NC leader said the main gate of the residence was locked by the police in the morning.
"Mr @OmarAbdullah has been locked up in his house. Democracy?" NC’s additional state spokesperson Sara Hayat Shah said in a post on X.
She also posted pictures of the locked gate of the Abdullah residence on the microblogging platform.
Omar Abdullah lives with his father after he vacated his official residence in October 2020.
While Farooq Abdullah, who is the Member of Parliament from Srinagar, is in Delhi for the ongoing Parliament session, his son is in the valley.
However, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha said any report of the house arrest or arrest of anyone ahead of the Supreme Court verdict on the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution is "totally baseless".
Sinha said this after the People's Democratic Party (PDP) claimed that its president Mehbooba Mufti was put under house arrest on Monday ahead of the Supreme Court verdict.
"This is totally baseless. In entire Jammu and Kashmir, no one has been put under house arrest or arrest. This is an attempt to spread rumour," the LG told reporters here.
Sinha said he is saying it with full responsibility that no one was put under house arrest or arrest for political reasons anywhere in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution that gave a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Security beefed up across Kashmir ahead of SC verdict on Article 370
Security was beefed up across Kashmir on Monday ahead of the Supreme Court's verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution that gave a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, officials said.
Security forces have been deployed at many places in the valley to maintain law and order, they added.
Checkpoints have been set up in and around Srinagar city and random frisking and checking of vehicles and people are being done, the officials said.
Checkpoints have also been set up at a few places in other districts of Kashmir.
However, there is no restriction on the movement of people anywhere in the valley, the officials said.
"Life is going on normally. Shops and other business establishments opened in the morning as usual. There are no restrictions anywhere," one of them said.
The officials said the security agencies are keeping a hawk's eye on the situation and attempts to disturb peace will be dealt with sternly.
The Cyber Police, Kashmir has advised social media users to use the platforms responsibly and refrain from sharing rumours, fake news, hate speeches or obscene, violent and defamatory content.
"Moreover, social media users are cautioned not to indulge in propagation of terrorist and secessionist ideology and false narrative," the Cyber Police said in an advisory.
It said the circulation of any incriminatory content received from other users without verifying the actual facts may be avoided and on noticing or receiving any such information, instead of sharing it with others, the social media users should immediately inform the Cyber Police about it.
The officials said no convoy movement will be allowed on Monday as a precautionary measure.
Movement of vehicles escorting or carrying VIPs and protected persons in "troublesome areas" should also be avoided, an advisory issued by the inspector general of police, Kashmir zone to all security forces and senior superintendents of police said.
The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its verdict on the petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 on Monday.
The provisions of Article 370 were abrogated by the Centre on August 5, 2019 and the erstwhile state was bifurcated into the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
A recap of SC hearing on Article 370
The first petition challenging the presidential order scrapping Article 370 was filed by advocate M L Sharma, who was later joined by another lawyer from Jammu and Kashmir, Shakir Shabir.
National Conference filed a petition on August 10. The petition was filed by Mohammad Akbar Lone and Justice (retd) Hasnain Masoodi, both Lok Sabha members of the NC.
There are other petitions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, including a plea filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats.
The arguments in the matter had commenced on August 2.
During the hearing, the top court heard Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri and others on behalf of the Centre and the intervenors defending the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370.
Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah and Dushyant Dave, had argued on behalf of the petitioners.
The lawyers had dwelt on various issues, including the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate the provisions of Article 370, the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which split the erstwhile state into two Union territories, challenges to the imposition of the governor's rule in Jammu and Kashmir on June 20, 2018 and the imposition of the president's rule on December 19, 2018 and its extension on July 3, 2019.
The petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 and the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 that divided the erstwhile state into the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh were referred to the Constitution bench in 2019.
During the hearing, the apex court had asked who can recommend the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir when no constituent Assembly, the concurrence of which is required before taking such a step, exists there.
The top court had also asked how can a provision (Article 370), which was specifically mentioned as temporary in the Constitution, become permanent after the tenure of the Jammu and Kashmir constituent Assembly came to an end in 1957.
Some of the petitioners opposing the repeal of Article 370 had argued that the provision could not have been abrogated as the term of the Jammu and Kashmir constituent Assembly ended in 1957 after it drafted the erstwhile state's Constitution.
With the constituent Assembly having become extinct, Article 370 acquired a permanent status, they had said.
The Centre had argued that there was no "constitutional fraud" in annulling the provision that accorded the special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.