New Delhi, India

India’s Supreme Court issued its verdict on Monday (Dec 11) on the Union government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status.

Advertisment

A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, had earlier kept its verdict reserved on September 5. The bench also comprised Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

Below are the key takeaways from the judgment:

'Article 370 was a temporary provision'

Advertisment

While reading out the verdict, the CJI made it clear that Article 370 was a temporary provision “on a reading of the historical context in which it was included.”

“It served the transitional purpose to provide for an interim arrangement, till the J&K Constituent Assembly could be formed and it could ratify the Indian Constitution. Second, it served a purpose in the war-like situation prevailing in the state,” the Chief Justice said.

No internal sovereignty

Advertisment

CJI Chandrachud said that Jammu and Kashmir holds no internal sovereignty after accession to India.  "It was only to further the relationship with the Union which was already defined under Article 370 and the proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh,” he said. 

Jammu and Kashmir surrendered its complete sovereignty with the merger, said the CJI.

“The fact that J&K is an integral part of India is evidenced in Section 3 of the J&K Constitution itself, apart from Articles 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution says, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States," said the Chief Justice.

Further, Article 3 of the J&K Constitution reads: "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India." The state's Constitution also provides that this provision cannot be amended.

Was President’s rule valid?

The Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the Presidential rule imposed in J&K in December 2018 since it was not specifically challenged by the petitioner, Chief Justice of India said.

Although, it added, "The President and Parliament are not impeded to take over as Governor/State Legislature after the proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356. There was no prima facie (on the face of it) case that the President's orders were mala fide (in bad faith) or extraneous exercise of power."

CJI on presidential powers vis-a-vis Jammu and Kashmir

"We have held that all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to J&K using Article 370(1)(d) in one go. We do not find the use of Presidential power to issue CO 273 was mala fide. Thus we hold the exercise of Presidential Power to be valid," the CJI said.

"The court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the President of India on whether the special circumstances under Article 370 exist. History shows the gradual process of constitutional integration was not going on. It was not as if after 70 years Constitution of India was applied in one go. It was a culmination of the integration process," the apex court observed.

Elections and restoration of statehood

The Supreme Court directed the Union to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible. It also directed the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in J&K by September 2024.

"The reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory is upheld as Article 3 allows a portion of State to be made as UT. The question of whether Parliament can convert a State into a Union Territory is left open," the court said.

Investigation on human rights abuses

Justice S K Kaul also issued directions regarding the setting up of an 'impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee' to investigate the alleged human rights abuses by both state and non-state actors. 

"I recommend the setting up of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation," said Kaul in his observation.

"The Commission must be set up before memory escapes. The exercise must be time-bound. There is an entire generation of youth that has grown up with a feeling of distrust and it is to them that we owe the greatest day of liberation."

(With inputs from agencies)