In a significant and unanimous decision, the Supreme Court today upheld the Centre’s abrogation of Article 370, solidifying the integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union. Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, alongside Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, penned concurring opinions, addressing pivotal issues that have long shrouded the region’s constitutional status.
The first crucial aspect addressed by the apex court was the ‘unique’ and ‘special status’ of Jammu and Kashmir. Emphatically, the court ruled that J&K relinquished any semblance of sovereignty upon its accession to India in 1947. Notably, the court referenced Maharaja Hari Singh’s proclamation, followed by his successor Karan Singh, affirming the precedence of the Indian Constitution over all other laws in the state. This pivotal proclamation effectively signified the merger of J&K into India, akin to other princely states.
SC Clarifies J&K’s Status, Legitimizes Presidential Actions on Article 370
Moreover, Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted Section 3 of the J&K Constitution, affirming Jammu and Kashmir’s integral part in the Indian Union. Justice Kaul underscored that the existence of a separate state Constitution did not signify a special status, emphasizing its role in governing the region rather than delineating a distinct sovereignty.
Delving into the temporal nature of Article 370, the Supreme Court reiterated its temporary, transitional essence. CJI Chandrachud meticulously traced the historical context and positioning of Article 370 within the Constitution’s temporary provisions. He noted its inception during the tumultuous circumstances prevailing in the state in 1947, solidifying its temporary character.
Additionally, the Court tackled the crux of the matter: the effective abrogation of Article 370 through presidential proclamations in 2019. Upholding both proclamations, including the redefinition of the “constituent assembly” as the “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir,” the Court grappled with the issue of the Union assuming powers during the state’s President’s rule. Drawing from the 1994 ‘SR Bommai v Union of India’ ruling, the Court outlined the powers and limitations of the Governor (President in J&K’s case), indicating that such actions must face judicial scrutiny only in exceptional circumstances.
CJI DY Chandrachud emphasized that such assumptions of state legislature roles by the Governor, when tested judicially, must demonstrate a prima facie absence of malice or an extraneous exercise of power. In alignment with this interpretation, the Supreme Court found no immediate grounds to deem the President’s orders as mala fide or beyond the scope of authority.
The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court on Article 370 not only clarified the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir but also affirmed the legality of the measures taken to integrate the region with the Indian Union, marking a watershed moment in India’s legal and constitutional narrative.
