Five Highlights From SC's 5-0 Judgment On Article 370

The Supreme Court on Monday (11 December) unanimously upheld the Centre's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution which gave special status to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud delivered the verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370.

The bench, also comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, unanimously upheld the decision of the government to scrap Article 370 on the ground that the same was a transitory provision.

Here are the highlights of the SC judgment:

Article 370 was a temporary provision

The Apex Court held that Article 370 was only a transitory provision enacted due to wartime conditions in J&K and it was meant to serve a transitional purpose.

"We hold that Article 370 is a temporary provision. It was introduced to serve transitional purpose to serve an interim process," the Court said.

"It was for a temporary purpose because of war conditions in the State. Textual reading also shows it is a temporary provision and thus it was placed in part 21 of the Constitution," it added.

Assembly elections in J&K by September 2024

The Supreme Court has also directed the Election Commission to conduct elections for the J&K legislative assembly by September 2024. Further, it said that restoration of statehood for J&K shall take place as soon as possible.

Validity of J&K Reorganisation Act 2019 Not Necessary To Be Adjudicated Upon

"SG submits that statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. We do not find it necessary to determine whether the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 was invalid. This court is alive to security concerns," the Court noted.

Reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory upheld

The reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory was upheld as Article 3 allowed a portion of state to be made as UT. The question whether Parliament can convert a State into a Union Territory was left open.

Presidential order abrogating Article 370 valid

The Supreme Court also upheld the validity of the Presidential order abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution.

"We hold tha the effect on Presidential power to issue a notification abrogating Article 370 subsists," CJI D Y Chandrachud said.

The CJI said that the recommendation of the constituent assembly was not binding on the President.

"Constituent assembly was never intended to be permanent body and it was to operate in a period of transition. When the constituent assembly ceased to exist, the special condition for which 370 was introduced ceased to exist but the situation in the state remained and thus the article remained," he said.

The Court further said that Article 370(3) was introduced for constitutional integration and not for constitutional disintegration.

"Holding that 370(3) cannot be used after constituent assembly was dissolved cannot be accepted since it was freeze the provision for constitutional integration," it said.

"The Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the President of India. The decision is however not beyond of judicial review and slew of constitutional orders under 370(1)(d) shows that union and state through a collaborative process had applied the constitution of india to the state of jammu and kashmir. This shows the gradual process of integration was ongoing and thus we do not find use of Presidential power was malafide. Thus we hold Presidential power to issue the notification was valid," the Court said.