New Perspectives Unveiled: Unraveling the Supreme Court’s Verdict on Article 370 Repeal

In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court has validated the Union Government’s 2019 move to abolish the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370. The constitutional bench, featuring CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, delved into the intricacies of the Constitution, particularly the Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 2019, also known as CO 272.

The court acknowledged that while CO 272 was ultra vires for modifying Article 370(3) through an amendment to Article 367, the declaration applying all provisions of the Constitution to J&K remained valid. Interestingly, the court reasoned that the State Government’s collaboration or concurrence wasn’t essential for the application of the Constitution to J&K, asserting the President’s unilateral power.

Understanding the Background: CO 272 and CO 273

The legal saga began with Article 370(3), empowering the President to declare the cessation of Article 370. With the dissolution of J&K’s Constituent Assembly in 1957, CO 272 was introduced in 2019. It replaced the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, declaring the applicability of the entire Indian Constitution to J&K. The court scrutinized the amendments to Article 367, highlighting the substitution of ‘Constituent Assembly’ with ‘Legislative Assembly.’

Invalidation of Article 370 Modification Through Article 367

The court emphasized the profound impact of seemingly minor legal modifications. It contended that altering the recommending body from the Constituent Assembly to the Legislative Assembly changed the essence of Article 370(3). The judgement, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, underscored that circumventing the prescribed amendment procedure through interpretative clauses could lead to disastrous consequences.

Parliament’s Independence from State Government Concurrence

Addressing the necessity of State Government concurrence, the court held that seeking concurrence from the Union Government, rather than the State Government, for CO 272 was valid. It clarified that Article 370(1)(d) did not necessitate State Government concurrence for applying all Constitution provisions. The court reasoned that collaboration was required only when amendments to the Constitution of J&K were at stake.

Validating CO 273

The court affirmed the President’s power under Article 370(3) to unilaterally declare the cessation of Article 370. It asserted that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly did not impede the President’s authority in this matter. While recognizing the decision as a policy matter within executive jurisdiction, the court emphasized the scope of judicial review.

Preserving Constitutional Integration

The judgement highlighted the gradual constitutional integration of J&K with the Union over seven decades. It underscored that freezing the integration process, as proposed by the petitioners, would defy the purpose of Article 370 and render it a permanent, redundant feature.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision offers a nuanced perspective on the legal intricacies surrounding Article 370’s repeal, emphasizing the delicate balance between constitutional amendments and the preservation of India’s diverse federal structure.