Central Idea

A landmark Supreme Court judgment from over four decades ago has become an obstacle to the Centre’s assertion that the “breakdown of constitutional machinery” in J&K.
Over this, the centre had justified the events leading to the abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019.
This judgment poses a significant challenge to the narrative surrounding the abrogation.

Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

Governor’s Role: The judgment underscores that the Governor, though appointed by the President, does not lead to a breakdown of constitutional machinery when a legislative Assembly is dissolved.
Historical Precedent: The Constitution Bench judgment in K.N. Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi, authored by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri in 1971, supports this view.

Central Tenet: The judgment clarifies that when a Governor dissolves a State’s legislative Assembly and assumes its powers, the premise of “failure of constitutional machinery” under Article 356 becomes untenable.
Absurdity of Claim: It is pointed out that it’s illogical for the President to assert a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” when the Governor, whom the President appointed, already holds control.

J&K’s Timeline: In Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor dissolved the State legislative assembly on November 21, 2018.
President’s Rule: A proclamation of President’s rule was issued on December 19, 2018, followed by Parliament’s approval on January 3, 2019. Extension of President’s rule occurred on July 3, 2019.
Abrogation of A370: The Centre, on August 5, 2019, introduced the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, changing the provisions of Article 370.
Legislating the abrogation: The next day, Parliament abrogated Article 370, reorganizing the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Challenging Constitutionality: Litigants argues that beneath the perceived constitutionality, there lies evident illegality. Once the State Assembly was dissolved, there was no breakdown of machinery.
Governor’s Powers: The Governor’s assumption of powers contradicts such a breakdown, making the President’s proclamation under Article 356 jurisdictionally flawed.
Constitutional Entity: Referring to the S.R. Bommai case, it is highlighted that a State as a “constitutional entity” should outlast Article 356’s intervention.