Supreme Court verdict today on petitions against Art 370 abrogation

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, December 10

More than four years after the nullification of Article 370 that gave special privileges to Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcation of the erstwhile state into two union territories Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the Supreme Court will on Monday deliver its historic verdict on petitions challenging the validity of the contentious changes made by Parliament.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, which reserved the verdict on September 5 after hearing marathon arguments spread over 16 days from the petitioners and the Centre, will deliver the all-important verdict at 10.30 am. The Bench, consisting of the senior-most judges of the top court, also included Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant.

Marathon hearings spread over 16 days

• A five-judge Constitution Bench had held marathon arguments spread over 16 days
• The Bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, had reserved the verdict on September 5
• Will decide the constitutional validity of the changes that ended J&K’s special status

The Bench will decide if the changes made on August 5-6, 2019, that ended the special status of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated it into two union territories were constitutionally valid or not.

During the hearing, the Centre had told the Bench that it was ready for elections in Jammu and Kashmir anytime and it was for the Election Commission to take a call. On the restoration of statehood, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said it was progressing to become a state. He had, however, refused to give a definite time frame, saying, “We are dealing with an extremely extraordinary situation.”

On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah, Dushyant Dave, Gopal Sankaranarayan and others had assailed the constitutional changes made in August 2019. The petitioners challenged the abrogation of Article 370 mainly on the ground that it was a political decision, which lacked constitutional backing as the procedure provided for in the Constitution, particularly the requirement of recommendation of J&K Constituent Assembly, for abrogation of the provision was not followed. As the J&K Constituent Assembly ceased to exist in 1957, Article 370 became permanent, the petitioners contended.

On behalf of the Centre and some interveners, Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri and others had defended the abrogation of Article 370, terming it a historic move that demolished the barriers in constitutional and emotional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India.

The arguments were centred around the Instrument of Accession (IoA), J&K Constituent Assembly, Articles 370, 367 and 368, the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370, J&K Reorganisation Act, imposition of Governor’s rule in the erstwhile state of J&K on June 20, 2018, followed by imposition of President’s rule on December 19, 2018, and its extension on July 3, 2019.

The Bench had said once the IoA signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1948 got subsumed in a post-Constitution document indicating transfer of power, it couldn’t act as a fetter on Parliament’s powers.