Supreme Court Reserves Verdict as Article 370 Hearing Wraps Up

Following a lengthy and intensive 16-day hearing, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in a series of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and the subsequent restructuring of the state into two Union territories.

The Constitution bench that heard and reserved the matter was composed of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai, and Surya Kant.

The hearing commenced on August 2, marking the end of a hiatus of over three years since its last listing in March 2020 when a five-judge bench declined to refer the matter to a larger bench. The petitioners had sought the reference on the basis of conflicting judgments in previous Supreme Court cases, but the bench disagreed.

During the final leg of the proceedings, petitioners argued for the permanence of Article 370 and the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, while the Center and other respondents emphasized the provision's temporary nature and its abrogation as a step toward the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal led the legal submissions for the petitioners, supported by a lineup of other senior counsel.

Various aspects of the case were discussed, including the requirement of consent from the constituent assembly for the abrogation of Article 370, the validity of the President's rule at the time of abrogation, and the Instrument of Accession. Some petitioners also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, which bifurcated the state into two Union territories on October 30, 2019, arguing that the Center lacked the power to reorganize a state in such a manner.

The government, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that Article 370 was a temporary arrangement to facilitate the integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. They emphasized that the Instrument of Accession had no legally enforceable commitments and that Article 370 existed to manage the situation temporarily.

Additionally, the government defended its authority to reorganize the state into two Union territories, stating that it was essential to maintain the country's integrity.

Towards the end of the hearing, the constitution bench asked the Center to provide a timeframe for granting statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting the importance of restoring democracy in the region.

On August 31, the Center refrained from committing to an exact timeframe for granting statehood but stated that elections for the legislative assembly of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir could occur when both state and central election commissions decide.

The Center maintained that the Union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is temporary, but they couldn't specify when it would regain statehood due to the region's unique historical context.

The Supreme Court's involvement in the matter began on August 28, 2019, when it issued notices on the petitions, despite initial resistance from the central government, which raised international and cross-border concerns about Article 370. The court referred the case to a five-judge constitution bench when issuing the notices.

Also Read:  Rahul Gandhi Raises China Border Issue a Day After PM Modi-Xi Meeting

OTT India updates you with the latest news, The Country’s no.1 digital news platform OTT India, Keeps you updated with national, and international news from all around the world. For more such updates, download the OTT India app on your Android and IOS device.