After 16 days of hearing, the Indian Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling upheld the Narendra Modi government’s decision in 2019 to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that had guaranteed special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

It also declared valid the central government’s move to carve out a separate union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August that year.

While pronouncing the verdict on Monday (Dec 11), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the top court came out with three judgements in response to a cluster of petitions filed against the government.

The three judgements pertained to.

1) Whether substitution of ‘constituent assembly’ by legislative assembly by using Article 370(1)(d) was valid.

2) Whether the Presidential rule imposed in December 2018 and subsequent extensions valid, and;

3) Whether the J&amp;K Reorganisation Act bifurcating the state into two Union Territories was constitutionally valid.

But before delving into the judgement, let’s see what Article 370 was.

<h2>What was Article 370?</h2>

Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir its own Constitution and decision-making rights for all matters barring defence, communications and foreign affairs. Its removal ended the special status to the state.

Contained within Article 370 was Article 35A, which allowed the erstwhile state to define who it acknowledged as permanent residents and gave special rights, such as government jobs and owning property.

However, as mentioned in the constitution, and pointed out by the court during the judgement, Article 370 was a temporary measure.

In 1951 a Constitution Assembly was elected for Jammu and Kashmir to formulate the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir within the ambit of Indian Constitution, and ‘subjects in respect of which the state should accede to the Union of India.'

And it was understood that this Assembly would have the authority to determine the future course of Article 370.

<h2>Validity of legislative assembly and president’s proclamation</h2>

In the 2019 Presidential orders, Parliament brought a provision giving new meaning to “constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, to mean “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, and then assumed the powers of the Legislative Assembly through President's rule to revoke Article 370.

The petitioners objected to it asking whether these actions could be taken by the Union assuming powers of the state when it is under President’s rule.

The top court upheld the proclamations by referring to the landmark 1994 ruling in ‘SR Bommai v Union of India’ which dealt with the powers and limitations of the Governor under President’s rule.

CJI DY Chandrachud said that the governor (President in J&amp;K’s case) can assume “all or any” roles of the state legislature and such action must be tested judicially only in extraordinary cases.

Citing an interpretation of the Bommai ruling, the SC said that there is “no prima facie case that the President’s orders were malafide or extraneous exercise of power.”

"The J&amp;K constituent assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the Constitution. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President," said Chief Justice Chandrachud.

<h2>J&amp;K’s sovereignty &nbsp;</h2>

While delving into the topic of Jammu and Kashmir having a special status which allowed it to enjoy autonomy within the federal structure of the Indian political system under Article 370, the Supreme Court held that J&amp;K did not retain any element of sovereignty after its accession to India in 1947.

“The state of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states. Whether Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty or internal sovereignty when it joined the Union of India, we have held no,” CJI said.

During the rule of Maharaja (king) Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the princely Jammu and Kashmir state, he proclaimed that he would retain his sovereignty, the court said.

However, his successor Karan Singh issued another proclamation that the Indian Constitution would prevail over all other laws in the state, it noted.

The court ruled that the subsequent proclamation had the effect of a merger like every other princely state that had joined India.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-approves-modi-govts-2019-move-that-stripped-jammu-and-kashmir-of-its-special-status-668426">India: SC approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped J&amp;K's special status</a>

The court concluded that Jammu and Kashmir has always been an integral part of India, with CJI Chandrachud citing Section 3 of the J&amp;K Constitution itself, apart from Article 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/article-370-wounds-require-healing-sc-recommends-setting-up-impartial-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-668450">Article 370: SC recommends setting up commission to probe human rights abuses</a>

Article 3 of the J&amp;K Constitution reads: “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.”

<h2>Article 370 a ‘temporary’ provision </h2>

The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to revoke Article 370 saying that it was a temporary, transitional provision.

While delivering its judgement, the bench said it took a textual reading of the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution dealing with temporary provisions.

“We hold that Article 370 is a temporary provision. It was introduced to serve transitional purposes to serve an interim process. 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,” Justice Chandrachud said.

&nbsp;

After 16 days of hearing, the Indian Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling upheld the Narendra Modi government’s decision in 2019 to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that had guaranteed special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

After 16 days of hearing, the Indian Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling upheld the Narendra Modi government’s decision in 2019 to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that had guaranteed special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. It also declared valid the central government’s move to carve out a separate union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August that year. While pronouncing the verdict on Monday (Dec 11), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the top court came out with three judgements in response to a cluster of petitions filed against the government. The three judgements pertained to. 1) Whether substitution of ‘constituent assembly’ by legislative assembly by using Article 370(1)(d) was valid. 2) Whether the Presidential rule imposed in December 2018 and subsequent extensions valid, and; 3) Whether the J&K Reorganisation Act bifurcating the state into two Union Territories was constitutionally valid. But before delving into the judgement, let’s see what Article 370 was. What was Article 370? Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir its own Constitution and decision-making rights for all matters barring defence, communications and foreign affairs. Its removal ended the special status to the state. Contained within Article 370 was Article 35A, which allowed the erstwhile state to define who it acknowledged as permanent residents and gave special rights, such as government jobs and owning property. However, as mentioned in the constitution, and pointed out by the court during the judgement, Article 370 was a temporary measure. In 1951 a Constitution Assembly was elected for Jammu and Kashmir to formulate the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir within the ambit of Indian Constitution, and ‘subjects in respect of which the state should accede to the Union of India.' And it was understood that this Assembly would have the authority to determine the future course of Article 370. Validity of legislative assembly and president’s proclamation In the 2019 Presidential orders, Parliament brought a provision giving new meaning to “constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, to mean “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, and then assumed the powers of the Legislative Assembly through President's rule to revoke Article 370. The petitioners objected to it asking whether these actions could be taken by the Union assuming powers of the state when it is under President’s rule. The top court upheld the proclamations by referring to the landmark 1994 ruling in ‘SR Bommai v Union of India’ which dealt with the powers and limitations of the Governor under President’s rule. CJI DY Chandrachud said that the governor (President in J&K’s case) can assume “all or any” roles of the state legislature and such action must be tested judicially only in extraordinary cases. Citing an interpretation of the Bommai ruling, the SC said that there is “no prima facie case that the President’s orders were malafide or extraneous exercise of power.” "The J&K constituent assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the Constitution. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President," said Chief Justice Chandrachud. J&K’s sovereignty While delving into the topic of Jammu and Kashmir having a special status which allowed it to enjoy autonomy within the federal structure of the Indian political system under Article 370, the Supreme Court held that J&K did not retain any element of sovereignty after its accession to India in 1947. “The state of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states. Whether Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty or internal sovereignty when it joined the Union of India, we have held no,” CJI said. During the rule of Maharaja (king) Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the princely Jammu and Kashmir state, he proclaimed that he would retain his sovereignty, the court said. However, his successor Karan Singh issued another proclamation that the Indian Constitution would prevail over all other laws in the state, it noted. The court ruled that the subsequent proclamation had the effect of a merger like every other princely state that had joined India. Also read | India: SC approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped J&K's special status The court concluded that Jammu and Kashmir has always been an integral part of India, with CJI Chandrachud citing Section 3 of the J&K Constitution itself, apart from Article 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. Also read | Article 370: SC recommends setting up commission to probe human rights abuses 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.” Article 370 a ‘temporary’ provision The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to revoke Article 370 saying that it was a temporary, transitional provision. While delivering its judgement, the bench said it took a textual reading of the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution dealing with temporary provisions. “We hold that Article 370 is a temporary provision. It was introduced to serve transitional purposes to serve an interim process. 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,” Justice Chandrachud said.

Explained: Article 370 - How India Supreme Court answered key questions on Kashmir special status

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday slammed Congress for its stand on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jnu-sedition-case-police-filed-charge-sheet-secretly-in-hasty-manner-delhi-govt-tells-court-208087">sedition law</a> as mentioned in party's manifesto and asserted that BJP will make it even more stringent after forming a government for a second term.

Addressing an election rally, Singh said, "If someone tries to break India, should they be forgiven? They say they will end the sedition law, to whom are they giving a signal? If our government comes to power we will make the sedition law even more stringent."

Earlier on April 3, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had also lambasted the Congress for promising to scrap the law.

Speaking at an election rally, Yogi had said, "It is shameful that the Congress in its manifesto has promised to scrap the provision on sedition, which is used against terrorists and those involved in terror activities if the party comes to power."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sonia-gandhi-questions-congress-manifesto-cover-for-its-dark-colour-207673">Congress</a> has promised in its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-unveils-manifesto-titled-congress-will-deliver-207408">manifesto</a> to remove the sedition law to give a "fillip to freedom of expression" in the country.

The provision for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code says, "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday slammed Congress for its stand on sedition law as mentioned in party's manifesto and asserted that BJP will make it even more stringent after forming a government for a second term.

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday slammed Congress for its stand on sedition law as mentioned in party's manifesto and asserted that BJP will make it even more stringent after forming a government for a second term. Addressing an election rally, Singh said, "If someone tries to break India, should they be forgiven? They say they will end the sedition law, to whom are they giving a signal? If our government comes to power we will make the sedition law even more stringent." Earlier on April 3, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had also lambasted the Congress for promising to scrap the law. Speaking at an election rally, Yogi had said, "It is shameful that the Congress in its manifesto has promised to scrap the provision on sedition, which is used against terrorists and those involved in terror activities if the party comes to power." Congress has promised in its manifesto to remove the sedition law to give a "fillip to freedom of expression" in the country. The provision for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code says, "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."

BJP will make sedition law even more stringent: Rajnath Singh

The Supreme Court will on Monday hear four petitions demanding the scrapping of Article 35A which grants special privileges to Jammu &amp; Kashmir.&nbsp;

The original petition was filed by Delhi-based NGO We the citizen, saying the state&rsquo;s autonomous status granted by Article 370 and Article 35(A) of the Constitution discriminates against fellow citizens from the rest of the country.

What is article 35A?

Article 35A is a provision in the Constitution that empowers the J&amp;K Legislature to define &quot;permanent residents&quot;&nbsp;of the state.

Permanent residents&nbsp;are conferred&nbsp;special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare.

The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land.

Article 35A was added through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370.

The J&amp;K legislature can alter the definition of &quot;permanent resident&quot; only through a law passed by a two-thirds majority.

Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution by an order by then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet.

The petition We the Citizens challenges the validity of both Article 35A and Article 370. It argues that four representatives from Kashmir were part of the Constituent Assembly involved in the drafting of the Constitution, and that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never accorded any special status under the Constitution. It contends that Article 370 was only a &quot;temporary provision&quot; to help bring normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir and strengthen democracy in the state. And that the writers of the Constitution did not intend Article 370 to be a tool to bring about permanent amendments -- like Article 35A -- in the Constitution

The petition states that Article 35A is against the &ldquo;very spirit of oneness of India&rdquo; as it creates a &ldquo;class within a class of Indian citizens&rdquo;.

And that stopping citizens of other states from finding employment or buying property in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Article 35A allows the state of Jammu and Kashmir to pronounce who is a 'permanent resident' of the state

The Supreme Court will on Monday hear four petitions demanding the scrapping of Article 35A which grants special privileges to Jammu & Kashmir. The original petition was filed by Delhi-based NGO We the citizen, saying the state’s autonomous status granted by Article 370 and Article 35(A) of the Constitution discriminates against fellow citizens from the rest of the country. What is article 35A? Article 35A is a provision in the Constitution that empowers the J&K Legislature to define "permanent residents" of the state. Permanent residents are conferred special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare. The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land. Article 35A was added through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370. The J&K legislature can alter the definition of "permanent resident" only through a law passed by a two-thirds majority. Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution by an order by then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The petition We the Citizens challenges the validity of both Article 35A and Article 370. It argues that four representatives from Kashmir were part of the Constituent Assembly involved in the drafting of the Constitution, and that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never accorded any special status under the Constitution. It contends that Article 370 was only a "temporary provision" to help bring normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir and strengthen democracy in the state. And that the writers of the Constitution did not intend Article 370 to be a tool to bring about permanent amendments -- like Article 35A -- in the Constitution The petition states that Article 35A is against the “very spirit of oneness of India” as it creates a “class within a class of Indian citizens”. And that stopping citizens of other states from finding employment or buying property in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

What is Article 35A, which SC will hear petitions against today?