"State of J&K does not retain any element of sovereignty": Key highlights from Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 370

The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories. The court declared that Article 370 is a temporary provision meant for the constitutio...

Article 370 verdict: SC upholds abrogation; asks to restore J&K's statehood, hold elections ASAP
A constitutional bench by the Supreme Court on Monday delivered its verdict on a series of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories. SC upheld the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K constitutionally valid. The top court directed the Election Commission to hold elections in Kashmir by 30 Sept 2024.

"We direct that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act by 30 September 2024; restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible," said the CJI.

ALSO READ: Article 370 verdict: Supreme Court upholds abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution


Here is what the top court said in its judgement:

  • The Chief Justice of India said the Supreme Court has held that Article 370 is a temporary provision.
  • 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.
  • We direct that restoration of statehood in Union Territory of J&K shall be done at the earliest.
  • We uphold validity of decision to carve Union Territory of Ladakh out of Jammu and Kashmir, siad SC.
ALSO READ: Conduct elections of J&K Assembly by September 30, 2024: SC directs Election Commission
  • Supreme Court said “Article 370 was meant for the constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union and it was not for disintegration, and the President can declare that Article 370 ceases to exist.”
  • “When the constituent assembly ceased to exist, the special condition for which 370 was introduced ceased to exist but the situation in the state remained and thus the article continued,” said the top court.
  • “J&K became integral part of India, this is evident from Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution,” said SC.
  • The Supreme Court said it holds that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain an element of internal sovereignty after it acceded to India.
  • The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President, said SC. “Constituent Assembly of J&K was never intended to be a permanent body.”
  • There is a clear absence in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to the reference of sovereignty.
  • Every decision taken by Centre on behalf of state during presidential rule can't be challenged, says CJI.
  • Principle of consultation and collaboration was not required to be followed for the exercise of Presidential power, said SC.
Key things Supreme Court said on abrogation of Article 370
1/6

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, has unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 bestowing special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Ending a decades long debate, the Constitution bench delivered three concurring judgements upholding abrogation of the Constitutional schemes that provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir when it was annexed to the Union of India in 1947.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, has unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 bestowing special status to the erstwhile state ..
Read More

Writing the judgement for himself and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, the CJI said Article 370 was a temporary provision and the president was empowered to revoke it in the absence of the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna penned separate and concurring verdicts on the issue.

Writing the judgement for himself and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, the CJI said Article 370 was a temporary provision and the president was empowered to revoke it in the absence of the Constitu..
Read More

The top court also upheld the validity of the decision to carve out the union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019. Justice Chandrachud referred to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's statement that Jammu and Kashmir's statehood will be restored, except for the carving out of the Union Territory of Ladakh. "In view of the statement we do not find it necessary to determine whether the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir is permissible under Article 3. However, we uphold the validity of the decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh in view of Article 3(a) read with Explanation I which permits forming a Union Territory by separation of a territory from any State," he said.

The top court also upheld the validity of the decision to carve out the union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019. Justice Chandrachud referred to Solicitor General Tushar Me..
Read More

The CJI in his verdict also said that the Constitution of India was a complete code for constitutional governance. "The President had the power to issue a notification declaring that Article 370(3) ceases to operate without the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly. The continuous exercise of power under Article 370(1) by the President indicates that the gradual process of constitutional integration was ongoing," the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict.

The CJI in his verdict also said that the Constitution of India was a complete code for constitutional governance. "The President had the power to issue a notification declaring that Article 370(3) c..
Read More

The Chief Justice said the erstwhile state of J&K does not retain any "element of sovereignty" after the execution of the Instrument of Accession and the issuance of the proclamation dated November 25, 1949 by which the Constitution of India was adopted. "Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty," Justice Chandrachud said. He said the exercise of power by the president under Article 370(1)(d) to issue CO 272 (by which Indian Constitution was put into effect in J&K) was not mala fide.

The Chief Justice said the erstwhile state of J&K does not retain any "element of sovereignty" after the execution of the Instrument of Accession and the issuance of the proclamation dated November 2..
Read More

The Supreme Court also directed restoration of statehood "at the earliest" as well as elections to the assembly by September 30 next year. "We direct that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act by September 30, 2024. Restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible," the CJI said.

The Supreme Court also directed restoration of statehood "at the earliest" as well as elections to the assembly by September 30 next year. "We direct that steps shall be taken by the Election Commiss..
Read More

Download
The Economic Times Business News App
for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App
for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
READ MORE
ADVERTISEMENT

READ MORE:

LOGIN & CLAIM

50 TIMESPOINTS

More from our Partners

Loading next story
Business News › News › India › "State of J&K does not retain any element of sovereignty": Key highlights from Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 370
Text Size:AAA
Success
This article has been saved

*

+