The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (December 11) issued its ruling on the Union Government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the former state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling:
While delivering the verdict, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated that Article 370 was considered a “temporary provision” based on the historical context in which it was included. The Chief Justice remarked, “It served the transitional purpose of providing a temporary arrangement, until the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir could be formed to ratify the Indian Constitution. Secondly, it served a purpose during the war-like situation that prevailed in the state.”
Lack of Internal Sovereignty:
The Chief Justice affirmed that Jammu and Kashmir does not possess internal sovereignty after its accession to India. He stated, “The objective was solely to strengthen the relationship with the Union, which was already defined under Article 370 and the declaration of Yuvraj Karan Singh.” He added, “Jammu and Kashmir surrendered its full sovereignty upon integration.”
Validity of the Presidential Order:
The Supreme Court rejected a ruling on the validity of the Presidential order imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in December 2018, as it was not specifically determined by the reference, the Chief Justice of India noted. However, he added, “It is not impossible for the President and Parliament to take on the role of the Governor/State legislature after the Presidential rule is declared under Article 356. There was no apparent circumstance that the President’s orders were malevolent or exercised power in an arbitrary manner.”
Elections and Restoration of Autonomy:
The Supreme Court directed the Union to restore governance in Jammu and Kashmir at the earliest. It also directed the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024. The court stated, “The reorganization of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3, allowing part of the state to be turned into a Union Territory, has been affirmed. The question of whether Parliament can convert the state into a Union Territory remains open.”
Investigation into Human Rights Violations:
Judge S K Kaul issued directives for the establishment of a “neutral Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to investigate alleged human rights violations by the state and non-state actors. Kaul stated in his remarks, “I recommend the establishment of a neutral Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate and report on human rights violations by the state and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend adoption of reconciliation measures.”
(With inputs from news agencies)
Leave a Reply