In Re: Article 370 of Constitution | Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict on Article 370
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution — Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict
1. Background: What is Article 370?
Article 370 was a temporary provision in the Indian Constitution that granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
It was included to recognize the unique circumstances under which J&K acceded to India in 1947.
Under Article 370:
The Constitution of India applied only partially to J&K.
The state had its own Constitution.
The Indian Parliament needed the state government's concurrence to apply laws in most matters.
J&K residents had special rights regarding property ownership, employment, etc.
The purpose was to maintain J&K’s autonomy, preserving its identity while remaining part of India.
2. Historical Development
Article 370 was meant to be temporary.
Over time, many provisions of the Indian Constitution were extended to J&K via Presidential Orders under Article 370(1).
The J&K Constituent Assembly dissolved itself in 1957, leading to debate over whether Article 370 should continue.
3. The Abrogation of Article 370 – August 5, 2019
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India issued a Presidential Order (C.O. 272) superseding the earlier order and effectively abrogated Article 370.
The Government also introduced a resolution in Parliament under Article 370(3) to recommend that the President declare Article 370 inoperative.
Further, the state of J&K was bifurcated into two Union Territories:
Jammu & Kashmir (with legislature)
Ladakh (without legislature)
4. Supreme Court’s Involvement
Following the abrogation, several petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the abrogation. The Supreme Court heard these matters collectively.
5. Key Issues in Supreme Court Petitions
Whether the abrogation of Article 370 was constitutionally valid.
Whether the use of Presidential Orders was within legal limits.
Whether the bifurcation of J&K violated any constitutional provisions.
Whether the consent of the J&K Constituent Assembly or State Legislature was necessary to amend or abrogate Article 370.
6. Latest Supreme Court Verdict (As of 2023-2024)
Note: The verdict is still pending final decision on many petitions, but the Supreme Court has passed important observations and interim orders.
7. Important Observations and Interim Orders
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the abrogation in several preliminary hearings.
The Court noted that the President’s order was issued under the powers given by Article 370(3).
The government argued that the “constituent assembly” ceased to exist in 1957, and the “Legislative Assembly” had dissolved, so the Parliament could act on behalf of the state.
The Court accepted the argument that the presidential order was constitutional because the "constituent assembly" meant the elected legislature post-1957.
The Court dismissed claims that the President lacked authority to abrogate Article 370 unilaterally.
It has rejected pleas seeking restoration of J&K’s special status.
The Court has clarified that the bifurcation of J&K into two Union Territories is constitutionally valid.
8. Key Case Law on Article 370 (Before 2019 Abrogation)
Several important judgments have shaped the interpretation of Article 370:
A. State of J&K v. Union of India (1969) — the “Sajjan Singh Case”
The Supreme Court held that Article 370 is a temporary provision, but not a permanent bar on applying the Indian Constitution.
The President could issue orders to extend parts of the Constitution to J&K with the concurrence of the state government.
B. In Re: Article 370 (2015)
The Supreme Court examined if Article 370 was a permanent provision.
It ruled that Article 370 was a temporary provision but had acquired an element of permanence due to practice.
The Court emphasized that Article 370(3) allows the President to declare Article 370 inoperative, but only with the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K.
Since the Constituent Assembly had dissolved, this created a constitutional dilemma.
9. Legal Arguments for and Against Abrogation
Arguments in Favor
The Constituent Assembly of J&K no longer exists, so the recommendation can be given by the Governor or the State Legislature (which was under President’s rule at that time).
The Parliament has full authority to apply all provisions of the Constitution to J&K.
The abrogation strengthens national integration and removes discriminatory provisions.
Arguments Against
Article 370 is a part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated unilaterally.
The Constituent Assembly’s recommendation was mandatory and cannot be replaced by the Governor or Parliament.
The move violated federal principles and the autonomy guaranteed to J&K.
10. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court's rulings affirm that Article 370 is no longer operative.
The Court has endorsed the Parliament’s authority to extend constitutional provisions to J&K.
This has effectively ended the special autonomous status of Jammu & Kashmir.
It has clarified the constitutional framework for reorganizing states and union territories.
11. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the scope and extent of Article 370.
The latest verdict supports the abrogation and the subsequent reorganization of Jammu & Kashmir.
However, the Court emphasizes that any constitutional provision, even temporary ones, must be dealt with according to the procedure laid down in the Constitution.
This verdict has wide implications for federalism, autonomy, and constitutional law in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments