In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court, while upholding the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370, underscored Parliament’s authority to carve out Union Territories from existing states. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a Constitution Bench, upheld the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019, which resulted in the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh from the erstwhile state of J&K.
The Court refrained from delving into the validity of converting J&K into a Union Territory, given the Union Government’s assurance to restore its statehood (excluding Ladakh) promptly. CJI Chandrachud’s lead judgment left the question open, emphasizing that the court might need to examine the scope of powers under Article 3 in the future, considering the impact on autonomy, historical context, federalism, and representative democracy.
Referring to Article 3(a) of the Constitution, the bench highlighted Parliament’s authority to “form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States.” Importantly, the Court clarified that a Union Territory can indeed be carved out of a State, citing Explanation 1 to Article 3, which includes Union territories in the definition of “State.”
“We uphold the validity of the decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh in view of Article 3(a) read with Explanation I, which permits forming a Union Territory by the separation of territory from any State,” the Court declared.
Furthermore, the Court asserted that the opinions of the concerned State on proposed reorganization, as per the proviso to Article 3, are not binding on Parliament.
“The views of the Legislature of the State under the first proviso to Article 3 are recommendatory to begin with,” the Court held, following the precedent set in Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay (1959). The Court justified Parliament’s enactment of the reorganisation Act during the State Assembly’s dissolution and imposition of Presidential rule, emphasizing that the State legislature’s views are not binding.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in his concurring judgment, issued a cautionary note on converting a State into a Union Territory, emphasizing the grave consequences and the need for strong and cogent grounds. He stressed that such conversion must strictly comply with Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
This decision echoes an earlier observation by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, affirming Parliament’s power to convert an existing State into a Union Territory during the delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir earlier this year.
