The Article 370 Verdict: Decoding the Supreme Court's Ruling on Jammu and KashmirPosted at 12-December-2023 / Written by Ayushi Rajput
The Supreme Court's recent verdict on Article 370 has reshaped the fate of Jammu and Kashmir. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the abrogation of Article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. The verdict, delivered by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, marks a significant shift in the region's political landscape. From the origins of Article 370 to the reactions of political leaders, we'll break down this crucial judgment in simple terms for our readers.
The Journey of Article 370
Nature of Article 370 - Not So Temporary?
The Big Move - August 5, 2019
The Back Story - What Led to Article 370?
The Constitutional Position Shift in 1954
The Geographic and Economic Context of J&K
What Did the Court Say?
- 1.Integral Part of India:
Chief Justice Chandrachud's assertion dismantled any notion of Jammu and Kashmir retaining internal sovereignty after accession. The court underscored that the state's integration into India mirrored the integration of other princely states, cementing its status as an integral part of the country.
- 2.Temporary Provision:
To further clarify the nature of Article 370, the judges adopted a textual approach. They pointed to historical context and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution, which deals with temporary provisions. This interpretation aligned with the provision's inception during the challenging circumstances in the state in 1947.
- 3.Abrogation Validated:
The court upheld both presidential proclamations in 2019 that effectively abrogated Article 370. This included redefining the "constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir" as the "Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir." The court referred to the landmark ‘SR Bommai v Union of India’ ruling to address concerns about the Union assuming state powers during the President’s rule.