Landmark Verdict: Supreme Court Validates Abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s Special Status

In a historic ruling on December 11, the Supreme Court endorsed the Union Government’s 2019 decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. The court asserted that J&K had no internal sovereignty, and the state government’s consent was not necessary to apply the Indian Constitution. Emphasizing that Article 370 was a temporary provision, the court refrained from assessing the validity of transforming J&K into a Union Territory but upheld the creation of Ladakh as a UT.

The Court directed the Election Commission to organize J&K Legislative Assembly elections by September 30, 2024, and declared Constitutional Order 272, which modified ‘J&K Constituent Assembly’ to ‘J&K Legislative Assembly,’ as invalid. However, this decision did not impact the overall judgment, as the Court ruled that the J&K Constituent Assembly’s recommendation was not mandatory for the President to declare Article 370 inoperative.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading the Constitution bench, delivered the judgment after a 16-day hearing, joined by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant. Justice Kaul proposed the establishment of a “Truth and Reconciliation Committee” to investigate human rights violations in J&K since the 1980s, aiming for reconciliation. The court left the setup details to the government.

Key Issues Addressed:

1. The temporary nature of Article 370.
2. The validity of amending Article 367 under Article 370(1)(d).
3. The application of the entire Indian Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1(d)).
4. The legality of abrogating Article 370 without the J&K Constituent Assembly’s recommendation.
5. The validity of dissolving the state legislative assembly.
6. The legality of the December 2018 imposition of Presidential rule and subsequent extensions.
7. The constitutional validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, creating two Union Territories.

Court Conclusions:

1. No need to review the validity of President’s Rule, as it was withdrawn in October 2019.
2. Certain decisions during Presidential rule cannot be challenged, and every decision is not open to scrutiny.
3. J&K did not retain internal sovereignty upon joining India.
4. Article 370 is temporary, and the power to issue notifications under Article 370(3) persists after the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution.
5. State government concurrence is unnecessary to apply all Constitution provisions to J&K under Article 370(1)(d).
6. Constitutional Order 272 modifying Article 367 is ultra vires Article 370 but doesn’t affect the overall ruling.
7. The validity of J&K Reorganisation Act 2019 is not crucial; Ladakh’s UT status is upheld.
8. Statehood of J&K to be restored soon; Elections to J&K assembly by September 30, 2024.
9. Recommendation for a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to address human rights violations since the 1980s.

The court order marks a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional history, settling longstanding debates and outlining a path forward for the region.