Central Idea

• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, leading to the reorganisation of the full-fledged State of Jammu and Kashmir to two Union Territories and denuding it of its special privileges.

Key Issues and Court’s Findings

[A] On the Sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir:

• Petitioners’ Claim: They argued that J&K retained an element of sovereignty when it acceded to India in 1947, different from other princely states.
• Court’s Examination: The Court noted that J&K was listed as a Part III state in the Indian Constitution and Section 3 of J&K’s Constitution declared it an integral part of India.
• Final Ruling: The Court held that J&K did not retain sovereignty, and the process of integration was ongoing, culminating in the Presidential declaration under Article 370(3).

[B] Whether Article 370 is Temporary or Permanent:

• Arguments Presented: Petitioners argued for Article 370’s permanence, while others viewed it as temporary.
• Court’s Opinion: Both CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul concurred that Article 370 was a temporary provision.

[C] Legality of Abrogating Article 370:

• Abrogation Process: On August 5, 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind issued CO 272, amending Article 367 and redefining “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” as the “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.”
• Court’s Upholding: The Court upheld this process, with CJI Chandrachud stating that post-dissolution of J&K’s Constituent Assembly, the President could have unilaterally abrogated Article 370.

[D] Actions Under President’s Rule:

• Challenge to Union’s Actions: The challenge was to the extent of powers appropriated under Article 356 (President’s rule).
• Reference to Bommai Ruling: The Court, citing the 1994 Bommai ruling, stated that actions under the President’s rule must not be mala fide or irrational.

Upholding Centre’s (Union) Supremacy

• Parliament’s Unilateral Actions: The Court’s interpretation suggests Parliament can change a state’s status under the President’s rule.
• Article 3 Reference: The President referred the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to Parliament for its views, as the state was under President’s rule.
• Validity of Executive Orders: The Court applied Bommai ruling standards to validate the executive orders, emphasizing the need for proof of mala fides to challenge the actions.

Conclusion

• J&K’s Integral Status Affirmed: The Court conclusively ruled that J&K has always been an integral part of India.
• Temporary Nature of Article 370: The ruling clarifies that Article 370 was a temporary provision.
• Expansion of Union Powers: The judgment potentially expands the Union’s powers under President’s rule, affecting the federal balance.
• Constitutional Precedent: This ruling sets a significant precedent in interpreting Union and state powers, reflecting on the dynamics of Indian federalism.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now