According to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), no action taken by the Center can be contested. He declared that Jammu and Kashmir is an essential component of India and that the court was not qualified to decide whether the government order was lawful.
More than four years after Article 370 was repealed and Jammu and Kashmir was divided into the Union territories of J&K and Ladakh, the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s use of his authority was lawful.
The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered the decision, declaring that the President’s 2019 order to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was lawful.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud rendered a unanimous decision on a number of appeals contesting the repeal of Article 370, according to the Supreme Court.
In announcing its decision to revoke Article 370 on Monday, the Supreme Court stated that statehood in Jammu and Kashmir would be reinstated as soon as possible and that elections should take place there by September 2024.
According to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), every action taken by the Center cannot be contested. He declared that Jammu and Kashmir is an essential component of India and that the court cannot rule whether the government order was lawful.
According to the Supreme Court, Article 370 is meant to be used as a stopgap measure and an interim procedure.
The Supreme Court ruled that because of the state of war, Article 370 was only a temporary solution. The CJI, reading the ruling, stated, “Textual reading also indicates that Article 370 is a temporary provision.”
According to the Supreme Court, Jammu and Kashmir lacks internal sovereignty. “Maharaja Hari Singh’s agreement declared the Indian Constitution to be final. When Jammu and Kashmir joined India, it lacked sovereignty.”
The integration of Jammu and Kashmir is not suspended by Article 370. The purpose of Article 370 is integration, not disintegration.
The Supreme Court rendered a decision regarding the constitutionality of the repeal of Article 370, which had granted Jammu and Kashmir special status.
The decision was handed down by a five-judge Constitution Bench that included Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant. This bench was entrusted with making decisions regarding several petitions that contested the Center’s choice to withdraw Article 370.
On August 2, 2023, the Supreme Court started considering arguments contesting the repeal of Article 370. The court postponed making a decision until September 5.
The petitioners had contended that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957, which was required for any modifications to the article, made Article 370 permanent. Petitioners argued that Article 370 should not have been repealed by the Centre taking over the Constituent Assembly’s role.
The Center, however, denied any “constitutional fraud” in the abrogation process and maintained that all constitutional procedures were adhered to correctly.
Hours before the Supreme Court’s decision, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) asserted on Monday that Mehbooba Mufti, the leader of the party, had been placed under house arrest.
The PDP claimed in a tweet that before the Article 370 ruling was made public, the police had locked Mufti’s house.
The petitioners were represented by Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhawan, Dushyant Dave, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Zafar Shah, and Kapil Sibal.