The Supreme Court proceedings taking a call on the constitutional validity of the Centre’s move to scrap ‘Article 370’, a special status granted to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir begins. Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the Presidential rule imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in December 2018 since it was not specifically challenged by the petitioner, the Chief Justice of India said. Chief Justice of India said Article 370 was a temporary provision.
The Centre in 2019 scrapped the special status and split the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
The verdict from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud comes in response to a slew of petitions challenging the Centre’s move four years ago. After a 16-day-long hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on September 5.
The petitioners argued that Article 370 cannot be scrapped unilaterally by the Centre, since the powers of the Constituent Assembly were vested in the Jammu and Kashmir legislature after it was dissolved in 1957.
Here are the Live Updates on the big story:
Get NDTV UpdatesTurn on notifications to receive alerts as this story develops.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: I have started with historical background…my conclusions are more or less the same, except in one issue, regarding the Prem Nath Kaul case, I have taken different route
Supreme Court upholds the decision to carve out Ladakh and make it as a Union Territory but refuses to intervene on Jammu and Kashmir as Union Territory as Centre has assured that statehood of Jammu and Kashmir will be restored “at the earliest”
Following Conclusions on the Verdict
a) State of Jammu and Kshmir does not retain any element of sovereignty. It does not have internal sovereignty. Article 370 a feature of asymmetric federalism and not soveriengty.
b)Petitioners did not challenge Presidential Proclamation
C) Exercise of President’s 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 Jammu and Kashmir Constituent assembly ceased to exist.
g) Article 370 cannot be amended by exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d).
Chief Justice of India: The reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory is upheld as Article 3 allows a portion of State to be made as UT. The question of whether Parliament can convert a State into a Union Territory is left open.
Supreme Court directs Election Commission of India to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024
Concurrence of the State govt was not required to apply all provisions of the Constitution using Article 370(1)(d). So the President taking the concurrence of the Union Govt was not malafide.
We have held that CO 272 to the extent of modifying Article 367 is ultra vires Article 370.
Chief Justice of India: We have held that all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to J&K using Article 370(1)(d) in one go. We do not find the use of Presidential power to issue CO 273 was mala fide. Thus we hold the exercise of Presidential Power to be valid.
Chief Justice of India: Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the President of India on whether the special circumstances under Article 370 exist. History shows the gradual process of constitutional integration was not going on. It was not as if after 70 years Constitution of India was applied in one go. It was a culmination of the integration process.
Chief Justice of India: Holding that the power under Article 370(3) ceases to exist after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly will lead to the freezing of the process of integration.
Chief Justice of India: The power of the President under Article 370(3) to issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist subsists even after the dissolution of the J&K. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President. J&K Constituent Assembly was intended to be a temporary body.
All States in the country have legislative and executive power, albeit to differing degrees. Articles 371 A to 371J are examples of special arrangements for different states. This is an example of asymmetric federalism, says Chief Justice of India.
Article 370 Verdict Live Updates: Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the constitution, the Chief Justice of India ruled.
Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the State. Textual reading also indicate that it is a temporary provision. Marginal note says it is temporary and transitory, says the Chief Justice of India.
Article 370 was a temporary provision, says the Chief Justice of India
Jammu and Kashmir surrendered its complete sovereignty with the merger, Chief Justice of India
Article 370 Verdict Live Updates: Exercise of power under Article 356 must have a reasonable nexus with the objective of the proclamation. Every decision taken by the Union on behalf of the State during Presidential rule is not open to challenge…this will lead to the administration of the state to a standstill, says Chief Justice of India.
Jammu and Kashmir did not retain an element of sovereignty when it joined Union of India, says Chief Justice of India.
The argument of petitioners that the Union cannot take actions with irreversible consequences in the State during Presidential rule is not accepted, says Chief Justice of India.
There are limitations on power of the Union in states when proclamation of presidential rule is in force, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.
Supreme Court refuses to rule on the validity of the Presidential rule imposed in J&K in December 2018 since it was not specifically challenged by the petitioner, Chief Justice of India said.
Supreme Court Live: Whether the Presidential proclamation valid. Court need not adjudicate on this since petitioners did not challenge it. And in any case it was withdrawn in Oct 2019, Chief Justice of India said.
Article 370 Verdict Live Updates: Whether Presidential order invalid for lack of recommendation of J&K Constituent Assembly, Chief Justice of India said.
Chief Justice Of India: Issue. Whether Article 370 is temporary. b) Whether substitution of ‘constituent assembly’ by legislative assembly by using 370(1)(d) valid
Chief Justice of India: I will read out the essence. There are three judgments. One by CJI for himself for Justice Gavai and Justice Surya Kant. There is a concurring opinion by Justice Kaul. Justice Sanjiv Khanna has concurred with both.
Article 370 Live Updates: Chief Justice of India along with four other judges arrive in the court.
Article 370 Verdict Live Updates: Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi among others in the front row of Court 1.
#WATCH | On reports of J&K leaders put under house arrest ahead of SC verdict on abrogation of Art 370, LG Manoj Sinha says, “This is totally baseless. No one has been put under house arrest or arrested due to political reasons in J&K. It is an attempt to spread rumours.” pic.twitter.com/CHvRh28Pu1
– ANI (@ANI) December 11, 2023
The Lt Governor said the allegations are “totally baseless”.
Article 370 Verdict Live Updates: The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expected to assemble in the court room soon. The counsels are present.
Some battles are fought to be lost
For history must record the uncomfortable facts for generations to know
The right and wrong of institutional actions will be debated for years to come
History alone is the final arbiter
of the moral compass of historic decisions
– Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) December 11, 2023
“The right and wrong of institutional actions will be debated for years to come. History alone is the final arbiter of the moral compass of historic decisions,” he posted on X.
Live Updates: People’s Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti claimed that she has been 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 said.
“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.
Police, however, neither confirmed nor denied the development which came just a few hours before the expected judgement of the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, cops 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.
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.
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.
Security was stepped up across Jammu and Kashmir today 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.
Article 370 Verdict Live: The Supreme Court proceedings in the matter on the constitutional validity of Centre’s move to scrap Jammu and Kashmir’s special status will be live-streamed by the court.
The hearing in the Supreme Court is expected to start around 10:30 am
National Conference leader Omar Abdullah said his party will not disturb the peace in Jammu and Kashmir even in case of an adverse verdict from the Supreme Court on the petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and will continue its fight per the law.
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) president and former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti said the court’s verdict should be clear that the decision taken by the BJP-led central government was “illegal”.
The BJP said that there should not be any politics on the Supreme Court ruling and everyone should respect it.
Another former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad expressed hope that the Supreme Court will deliver a verdict in favour of the people.
The Centre has argued that its decisions were taken within the legal framework. It has also contended that the mainstreaming of Jammu and Kashmir has reduced terrorism and provided a level playing field.
Over the last four years, it has helped move the erstwhile state on the fast-track to development, the government has argued.
The Supreme Court has questioned who can recommend the revocation of Article 370. Under the rules, a nod is required from the Constituent Assembly to scrap Article 370, which the Constitution held temporarily. The Supreme Court has also asked how the Article became permanent after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved.