Abrogation Of Article 370 Constitutionally Valid
The Supreme Court’s verdict on the Centre’s 2019 move to amend Article 370 of the Constitution was
announced today (December 11). The court held that the Constitutional order that abrogated Article
370 was valid. A five-judge Constitution bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud
had earlier reserved its verdict on 23 petitions in the matter on September 5 this year. The bench
comprised of Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, along with the Chief Justice of
India. The abrogation of the article ended the special status conferred on the erstwhile state of Jammu
“The proclamation of Maharaja stated that the Constitution of India will supersede. With this, the para
of Instrument of Accession ceases to exist. Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to war
conditions in the State. Textual reading also indicates that Article 370 is a temporary provision,” the
The Apex court mentioned that the argument of petitioners that the Union government cannot take
actions with irreversible consequences in the State during Presidential rule is not acceptable.
The Supreme Court said,” The reorganisation of the erstwhile state into Union Territories in 2019 was a
temporary provision. “The Centre should work for the restoration of statehood and for Legislative
Assembly elections to be held in 2024 the Apex court added. The Court also noted that Article 370 was
meant for the constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union, and not for
disintegration. Therefore, the President can declare that Article 370 ceases to exist.
The Supreme Court also directed the Election Commission to hold Jammu and Kashmir Assembly
elections by September 30, 2024. The Supreme Court said in view of the Centre’s submission on restoration
of the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, it directs that statehood shall be restored as soon as possible.
On September 5, the apex court reserved the judgement after hearing the arguments for 16 days.
The central government had defended its decision to abrogate Article 370, saying there was no
“constitutional fraud” in repealing the provision that accorded special status to the erstwhile state of
Jammu and Kashmir.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the
Petitioners Represented By Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of the petitioners. His opening argument saying Article
370 was no longer a “temporary provision”. It had assumed permanence post the dissolution of the
Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.
He contended that the Parliament could not declare itself to be the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir to
facilitate the abrogation of Article 370 as Article 354 of the Constitution does not authorise such
exercise of power.
On August 5, 2019, the Central government announced the revocation of the special status of Jammu
and Kashmir granted under Article 370 and split the region into two union territories. (ANI)