Supreme Court to deliver verdict on petitions challenging nullification of Article 370 on Monday
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, December 10
More than four years and four months after the nullification of Article 370 that gave special privileges to Jammu and Kashmir and its bifurcation into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir; and Ladakh, the Supreme will on Monday deliver its 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 Justice SK Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant.
The will decide if the changes made on August 5 and August 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’s ready for elections in Jammu and Kashmir anytime and it’s for the Election Commission to take a call.
On restoration of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said it’s progressing to become a state. He had, however, has refused to give a definite time frame, saying, “We’re 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 intervenors, 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), Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly, Article 370, Article 367, Article 368, the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act—which split the erstwhile state into two union territories, 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 can’t act as a fetter on Parliament’s powers.
Emphasising that the overall situation has improved, the Centre had said that compared to 2018, terror attacks were down by 45% and Infiltration was reduced by 90% while tourism was showing signs of revival.
