The decision to delete Article 370 from the Constitution was upheld by the Supreme Court on Monday (December 11).
Hearing the petitions challenging the deletion of Article 370, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, "We uphold the exercise of the President's power to issue a constitutional order to delete Article 370 of the Constitution."According to news agency PTI, Chief Justice Chandrachud also upheld the validity of the decision to separate Ladakh.
The Chief Justice said, "The Solicitor General had made a statement that statehood would be granted to Jammu and Kashmir. We stand by the decision to separate Ladakh. We direct the Election Commission to conduct elections at the earliest under the Reorganization Act and Section 14.”
Notice to hold elections by September
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has directed the Election Commission to hold elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024.
The Supreme Court on Monday gave its verdict on the petitions challenging the removal of Article 370. Chief Justice Chandrachud upheld the validity of this decision.
Chief Justice Justice Chandrachud said, "We direct the Election Commission of India to take steps to hold the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections by September 30, 2024."
What did the Supreme Court say?
Delivering the judgement, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, "A decision taken by the Central Government during the President's rule cannot be challenged. Article 370 was a provision made in case of war. Even if we look at the text of this Article, it is clear that it was a temporary provision."The Supreme Court said, "Jammu and Kashmir has no right to internal sovereignty after its merger with India."
In 2019, the BJP government at the Center abrogated Article 370 and bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
The constitutional validity of this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. Apart from Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which delivered the verdict in the case, includes Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, BR Gavai and Suryakant.
The Supreme Court also said that Article 370 was a temporary arrangement to be made during the war-like situation in the state and that it is clear from Article 1 and 370 of the Constitution that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India.The constitution bench had reserved its decision on September 5 this year after a 16-day cross-examination.
A total of 23 petitions were filed in this case. The petitioners include civil society organizations, lawyers, politicians, journalists and activists.
The petitioners had asked the court to abrogate Article 370 and cancel the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories.
What is this clause? Why'd you remove it? What does the government and the opposition have to say about this? Let's know about it.
1. What is Article 370?
According to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was given special status. Therefore, the Constitution of India was not applicable there.
Except Article 1 of the Constitution, no article was applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. It is said in this article that India is a group of states.
Jammu and Kashmir had a separate constitution. Only the President has the power to amend and enforce the Constitution. But he also needed the approval of the state government.
Also, Parliament had the power to make laws only in the areas of foreign affairs, defense and communications. Also, if any amendments were to be made in this section, restrictions were also placed on it. Provision was made that the President would make these amendments with the consent of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly was constituted in 1951.It had 75 members. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was drafted in this meeting. This assembly was dissolved in 1956 when a separate state constitution was formed. From the beginning, BJP felt that 370 is a big obstacle in the merger of Kashmir with India. Even in the election manifesto, he had promised many times to remove Article 370 and 35A. Article 35A was inserted in the Constitution in 1954. This clause gave special rights to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. Special rights were granted in the matter of acquisition of property in the state and residence there.
2. How was this clause removed?This legal process was very complex and complicated.
On August 5, 2019, the President issued an order. Accordingly, a constitutional amendment was made. Accordingly, it was proposed that the Constituent Assembly of the State will now be the Legislative Assembly of the State.
Also, the state government will be the equivalent of the governor.
This is very important because the state was under President's Rule from December 2018 when the Constitution was amended. In June 2018, BJP withdrew support from PDP. After that there was Governor's rule for six months and then President's rule.At other times the President needed the permission of the State Legislature. But because of the President's rule, there was no need for the permission of the Legislative Assembly.
This order gave scope to the central government to amend Article 370 as per their wish.
The next day the President issued another order. Accordingly, all the provisions of the Constitution of India were applied to Jammu and Kashmir. Due to this, the special state status given to the state was lost. On August 9, 2019, Parliament passed another law. Accordingly, the state was divided into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. It was decided to establish a Legislative Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir. He did not get that honor in battle.
Lockdown was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir from August 5. A curfew was imposed there. Phones and internet were turned off. Thousands of people and some political leaders were rounded up, arrested and some were put under house arrest. Thousands of security personnel were deployed.
A few months later i.e. in January 2020, 2G internet service was restored. 4G service was restored in February 2021.After the repeal of Article 370, many petitions were filed against this decision. In August 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a five-judge bench. In August this year, the court started conducting the final hearing in this case.
4. Who are the petitioners in this case?
There were 23 petitioners in this case. It includes many civil organizations, lawyers, journalists and activists.
According to the petitioners, the court should quash the decision regarding Article 370 and the division of Jammu and Kashmir into a state and a union territory.
According to him, Article 370 was a permanent provision and if it was to be amended, the permission of the Constitution Committee was required.
But it was dissolved in 1956. The decision to abrogate Article 370 was against the accession, which made Jammu and Kashmir a part of India.
The petitioners also argued that this decision was taken against the will of the people.The petitioners also say that when President's rule was in force in the state, this constitutional amendment could not have been done. The governor, who is appointed by the central government, acted like an assembly while amending the constitution and later deleting Article 370.
Similarly, a state is not allowed to be divided into two Union Territories. Because it reduces the powers of the state. Because the authority of the Center is exercised over the Union Territories.
6. How did the government justify its decision?
The government argued that Article 370 was a temporary provision. As the Constitution Committee was disbanded, the Legislative Assembly had to accept that position. Had that not happened, the provision could never have been amended.
Besides, the government has also said that the orders passed by it or the governor during the President's rule are equivalent to the orders passed by the state assembly. Therefore, changing the situation during President's rule does not make this work illegal. The government also says that it has full powers to reorganize the states. The government can change the name, area, boundaries of the state and can also divide the state into union territories.
Apart from this, the government has also said that when law and order improves, the government will restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.The government has also said that the removal of special status has boosted development, tourism and law and order in the state. So it was a right step.
