Landmark Verdict: India's Supreme Court Upholds Revocation of Kashmir's Article 370
Supreme Court Backs Centre's Decision to Revoke Kashmir Article 370, Stripping Special Status from Jammu and Kashmir.
On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed the Central government's move to revoke Article 370, providing special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission of India to conduct assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in authoring the judgment alongside Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, asserted that Article 370 of the Constitution was a provisional provision, highlighting that the president possesses the authority to annul it.
The Supreme Court's decision represents a significant political advantage for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party as they gear up for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status in August 2019, under Article 370 of the Constitution, followed the BJP's sweeping victory in elections and marked the fulfillment of a crucial electoral promise by the prime minister. The court's ruling reinforces the political landscape, positioning the government favorably in the lead-up to the upcoming national elections.
The Supreme Court deliberated on petitions challenging a sequence of legislative and executive measures aimed at nullifying the special status of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, subsequently dividing it into union territories, including Ladakh. Following these changes, the Jammu and Kashmir administration imposed constraints on people's movement, limited internet connectivity, and detained local political leaders. The court's examination of these issues underscores the legal scrutiny of the constitutional changes and their impact on civil liberties and political dynamics in the region.
CJI Chandrachud, while delivering the judgment, emphasized that decisions made by the Centre on behalf of a state under proclamation cannot be endlessly challenged legally, as it would bring the state administration to a standstill.
The Supreme Court further asserted that Article 370 was deemed temporary, citing the proclamation of the Maharaja that the Indian Constitution would supersede, rendering the Instrument of Accession's paragraph defunct.
The court clarified that Article 370 was an interim measure due to wartime conditions, reinforcing its temporary nature. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioners' argument against irreversible actions during Presidential rule in the state.
CJI Chandrachud clarified, "We have determined that the state of Jammu and Kashmir relinquished any element of sovereignty upon its accession to the Union of India. Our conclusion is based on paragraph eight of the Instrument of Accession executed by Maharaja Hari Singh, explicitly stating that the instrument would not impact the continued sovereignty of the Maharaja over the state."
The CJI highlighted that a proclamation was issued on November 25, 1949, by "Yuvraj Karan Singh" for the State of Jammu and Kashmir. "The declaration in this proclamation, asserting that the Constitution of India would supersede and abrogate inconsistent constitutional provisions in the state, accomplishes what could have been achieved through a merger agreement.
The issuance of the proclamation renders the paragraph of the Instrument of Accession legally inconsequential, symbolizing the complete and final surrender of sovereignty by Jammu and Kashmir, through its sovereign ruler, to India," added the CJI.
The Supreme Court affirmed, stating, "The President's declaration exercises power, and Clause 3 of Article 370 marks the conclusion of the integration process. Therefore, we find no evidence of malice in the President's exercise of power under Clause 3 of Article 370, and we deem the exercise of Presidential Power to be valid."
The court emphasized that Article 370 was intended for the constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union, not for disintegration, and highlighted the President's authority to declare the cessation of Article 370. It clarified that the concurrence of the State government was not necessary to apply all provisions of the Constitution through Article 370(1)(d), and thus, the President seeking concurrence from the Union government was not malicious, as per the court's findings.
On September 5, the Supreme Court concluded the hearings after 16 days and reserved its verdict. The Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, justified the abrogation of Article 370, asserting there was no "constitutional fraud" in repealing the provision granting special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, presenting the case for the petitioners, argued that Article 370 had evolved beyond a "temporary provision" and had acquired permanence following the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.
Comments