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
