The apex court had also upheld the validity of the Centre’s decision to secede the Union Territory (UT) Ladakh from the erstwhile state of J&K.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 11, 2023 verdict, which unanimously upheld the Centre’s decision to abrogate the provisions of Article 370, granting special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir granted.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud heard the arguments in the chambers and rejected requests for inclusion of the review petition in open court.
“After examining the review petitions, prima facie there is no error. There is no case for revision under Order since retired) said in their May 1 order.
It also denied permission to appear and argue in person, a request made by several petitioners.
The review petitions have been filed by Awami National Conference, Jammu and Kashmir People Democratic Party, CPI(M) leader Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association and lawyer Muzaffar Iqbal Khan.
On December 11, the Supreme Court, while upholding the Centre’s 2019 decision, had ordered assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September-end this year and restoration of statehood “at the earliest”.
Opining that Article 370, which was incorporated into the Indian Constitution in 1949 to grant special status to J&K, was a temporary provision, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud said the President of India had jurisdiction to pass the measure to withdraw. absence of the Constituent Assembly of the former state whose term of office expired in 1957.
Resolving the decades-long debate on the contentious issue of Article 370, the five-judge bench had, after a 16-day hearing, delivered three concurring judgments confirming the abrogation of Article 370, which granted J&K a unique status when it joined the Union of the Indies in 1947.
Justice (since retired) Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote separate but concurring judgments on the issue.
The apex court had also upheld the validity of the Centre’s decision to secede the Union Territory (UT) Ladakh from the erstwhile state of J&K.
The top court had said that the erstwhile state of J&K has not retained any “element of sovereignty” after the implementation of the Instrument of Accession and the proclamation of November 25, 1949, which adopted the Constitution of India. It also ruled that Article 370 was a feature of “asymmetric federalism and not of sovereignty”.
CJI Chandrachud had referred to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s statement that statehood of J&K will be restored, except carving out the UT of Ladakh. While the state was bifurcated into two UTs, the government provided legislative assembly for the UT of J&K only.
“In view of the statement, we do not find it necessary to determine whether the reorganization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir is permissible under Article 3.
“We, however, maintain the validity of the decision to demarcate the Union Territory of Ladakh in view of Article 3(a) read with Explanation I, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separation from any territory of any State ”, the CJI had said. in the verdict.
The court had dealt with the validity of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order (CO)-272 dated August 5, 2019, applying all the provisions of the Constitution of India to J&K and the word ‘constituent assembly’ in Article 370 (3) was amended to ‘Legislative Assembly’.
“The consent of the State Government was not necessary for the President to exercise the power under Article 370(1)(d) to apply all the provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. The exercise of power by the President under Article 370 ( 1)(d) The issuance of CO-272 is not malafide. CO-272 is therefore valid to the extent that it applies all the provisions of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” the report said.
The Supreme Court had also upheld the validity of CO-273, which repealed Article 370, saying the President’s statement is a culmination of the integration process and as such is a valid exercise of power.
The CJI had said that the Constitution was a complete code of constitutional governance.
“The President had the power to issue a notification declaring that Article 370(3) shall, without a recommendation from the Constituent Assembly, cease to be in force. The continued exercise of power under Article 370(1) by the President indicates that the gradual process of constitutional integration was underway,” the CJI had said in a 352-page judgment.
The petitioners had argued that Article 370 could not have been amended without the consent of the state Constituent Assembly, which ceased to exist in 1957, and argued that in its absence, the constitutional provision would become permanent.
Delivering his judgment, Justice (Retd) Kaul said the purpose of Article 370 was to slowly bring J&K on par with other Indian states.
He had ordered the creation of an “impartial truth and reconciliation commission” to investigate human rights abuses by both state and non-state actors since at least 1980.
(Only the headline and image of this report may have been reworked by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)
First print: May 21, 2024 | 11:35 PM IST