On September 5, a five-judge  constitution bench headed  by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud  reserved its  verdict  after hearing the petitioners, the  Center  and  the  J&K  government  for 16 days.  

 Over four years after Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) lost its special status following the abrogation of Article  370  and the state was  reorganized  into  two Union  Territories,  J&K and Ladakh, the Supreme Court  is expected to ruled  on  one batch  on  Monday.  petitions challenging the  legality  of the  Centre’s  decision.  

 On September 5, a five-judge  constitution bench headed  by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud  reserved its  verdict  after hearing the petitioners, the  Center  and  the  J&K  government  for 16 days. The  bench comprised  Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant. Justice Kaul will retire on December 25 while the  remaining  three  judges will become  Chief  Justices  of India.  The court heard a  series  of 23  applications. Of these,  some  were filed before the August 5, 2019  amendments,  challenging  Article  35A of the Constitution  which allowed  J&K to  pass  special laws for its permanent residents. 

  Some of the  petitioners  who  began arguing  on August  2 argued  that Article 370 was  temporary  until  the erstwhile state  Constituent Assembly  took a decision, one way or the other. But  when  the Constituent  Assembly’s mandate  expired in 1957, the provision became permanent and could not be  changed through  any constitutional  procedure,  they said.  

 The petitioners contended that  no annexation agreement  was  signed between the Union of India and the then Maharaja of J&K but only  the  Instrument of Accession  (IoA)  and, therefore, there was no surrender of sovereignty. They argued that the IoA limited  Congress’s legislative  power  over  the state  to ensure  its subjects would have a greater say.  

 The petitioners contended that the manner in which the special status was  removed  by  the  Presidential  Order  dated August 5 and 6, 2019, while J&K was under  the President’s rule, violated  the Constitution. 

  Refuting  the  allegations,  the  Center  and the J&K  government asserted  that  proper procedure  was followed in  bringing in  the changes.  Contrary to  the  arguments of the petitioners as to  how  the National Assembly  could assume the role of the Constituent Assembly, the  Government stated that  the  word “Constituent Assembly”  in Article 370(3)  refers to  can be read  as  “Legislative Council”.  

 The  Center argued  that during  the President’s tenure,  the powers of the J&K Assembly  were  vested  in  the Parliament, which  in turn had legislative  powers  for the state.  They  called  the changes  to Article 370  “historic”  and said  they  had  “brought  unprecedented development, progress, security and stability to the region, which was often  lacking under  the old  regime of  Article  370”.  

 During the hearing, the  judges also questioned  the claim  that  the provision  would become  permanent and wondered why it was then  included  in Part XXI of the Constitution which  refers to  “temporary, transitional and  special”.

The  petitioners  include  IAS officer Shah Faesal and activist Shehla Rashid.  However, they  withdrew  before the hearing  began.

 For more  information,  visit at https://happenrecently.com/zepto/?amp=1