Pronouncing the verdict on pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud on Monday said the Supreme Court need not adjudicate on the validity of the President’s rule imposed in Jammu & Kashmir in December 2018.
“The pleading of the petitioners indicate that the principal challenge is to abrogation of Article 370 and whether such action could have been taken during the President’s rule,” CJI Chandrachud said.
He added that even if the Supreme Court holds that proclamation under Article 356 could not have been issued, no material relief could be given in view of the fact that the President’s rule was revoked in the state in October 2019.
On September 5, a Constitution Bench, which included the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, had reserved its verdict after hearing oral arguments from both sides.
Earlier in March 2020, a five-judge Constitution Bench declined to accept the contentions of the petitioners to refer the issue to a larger bench of seven judges.
The 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI N.V. Ramana, reasoned that the earlier judgments rendered by the top court in the Prem Nath Kaul case and the Sampat Prakash case, dealing with the interpretation of Article 370, were not in conflict with each other
CJI Chandrachud is pronouncing the verdict on the batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 2019 Presidential Order taking away the special status accorded to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and its bifurcation into two Union Territories
1. J&K DOES NOT RETAIN ANY ELEMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY AFTER INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION WAS SIGNED
2. NO INTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY FOR JAMMU AND KASHMIR
3. CHALLENGE TO THE PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENTIAL RULE IS NOT VALID
4. EXERCISE OF POWER OF PRESIDENT MUST HAVE A REASONABLE NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT OF PRESIDENTIAL RULE
5. POWER OF PARLIAMENT TO LEGISLATE FOR STATE CANNOT EXCLUDE LAW MAKING POWER
6. ARTICLE 370 WAS A TEMPORARY PROVISION
7. WHEN CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY WAS DISSOLVED ONLY THE TRANSITORY POWER OF THE ASSEMBLY CEASED TO EXIST AND NO RESTRICTION ON PRESIDENTIAL ORDER
8. PARA 2 OF CO 272 BY WHICH ARTICLE 370 WAS AMENDED BY AMENDING ARTICLE 367 WAS ULTRA VIRES AS INTERPRETATION CLAUSE CANNOT BE USED FOR AMENDMENT
9. PRESIDENT USE OF POWER WAS NOT MALA FIDE AND NO CONCURRENCE NEEDED WITH STATE
10. PARA 2 OF CO 272 IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER 370(1)(D) APPLYING ALL PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR WAS VALID
11. THE CONTINUOUS EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT SHOWS THE GRADUAL PROCESS OF INTEGRATION WAS ONGOING. THUS CO 273 IS VALID
12. CONSTITUTION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR IS OPERATIVE AND IS DECLARED TO HAVE BECOME REDUNDANT
13. PRESIDENTIAL USE OF POWER NOT MALA FIDE
14. SG MADE STATEMENT THAT STATEHOOD WILL BE RESTORED TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR. WE UPHOLD THE DECISION TO CARVE OUT UT OF LADAKH. WE DIRECT ECI HOLDS POLLS UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE REORGANISATION ACT AND STATEHOOD AT THE EARLIEST
Supreme Court directs Election Commission of India to hold Assembly elections in J&K by September 30, 2024.
Article 370: We direct that restoration of statehood in Union Territory of J&K shall be done at the earliest, says CJI. (KDC)
