Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370 Abrogation: Key Highlights and Implications

 

constitution bench

On December 11, 2023, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud delivered a unanimous verdict upholding the Central government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370. This constitutional provision granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The judgment is noteworthy for its clarification on the temporary nature of Article 370 and its various implications.

1. Nature of Article 370:

The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 370 was a 'temporary provision,' enacted during wartime conditions in Jammu and Kashmir for a transitional purpose. This clarification sets the foundation for understanding the court's stance on the legal status of Article 370.

2. Internal Sovereignty:

The court unequivocally stated that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain any internal sovereignty after its integration into India. It further ruled that the concurrence of the State Government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution to the state. This addresses a key point of contention regarding the autonomy of the region.

WPL 2024 Players Auction Highlights

3. Validity of Abrogation:

The Constitution Bench, through CJI DY Chandrachud, affirmed the validity of the government's decision to abrogate Article 370. This underscores the constitutional soundness of the 2019 move, effectively ending the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir.

4. Reorganization into Union Territories:

While acknowledging the temporary nature of the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories (Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh), the court directed the Central government to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. The decision to uphold the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory was a notable aspect of the judgment.

Google's Gemini is next level AI

5. Election Commission Directive:

The Supreme Court issued a directive to the Election Commission of India, instructing it to take steps to conduct elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly by September 30, 2024. This signifies a crucial step towards the restoration of democratic governance in the region.

6. Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

In a concurring judgment, Justice S.K. Kaul recommended the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Jammu and Kashmir. This commission's mandate includes investigating and reporting on human rights violations by both state and non-state actors since the 1980s. Additionally, it is tasked with proposing measures for reconciliation within a specified timeframe.

7. No Adjudication on Ladakh's Union Territory Status:

The court notably refrained from adjudicating upon the validity of the reorganization of the state into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. This decision might be attributed to the government's expressed intent to restore Jammu and Kashmir's statehood.

Conclusion:

In summary, the Supreme Court's verdict on Article 370 abrogation clarified the temporary nature of the constitutional provision, upheld the government's decision, and outlined directives for the restoration of statehood, conducting elections, and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Jammu and Kashmir.