The Supreme Court upheld the Modi government’s decision to repeal Article 370 in a landmark decision delivered by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, signaling a significant shift in the constitutional landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. The decision established that J&K lacked internal sovereignty and that Article 370 represented asymmetric federalism, not state sovereignty.
Addressing the core aspects of the judgment, the Court emphasized that the reorganization of the erstwhile state into Union Territories in 2019 was a temporary measure, directing the Centre to reinstate Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. This decision was coupled with the directive to conduct assembly elections in the region by September 30, 2024.
Key highlights of the verdict delineated the nature of Article 370, clarifying that it remained a temporary provision even after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. The Court affirmed Parliament’s authority under Article 356(1), extending beyond lawmaking and enabling it to act on behalf of the State Assembly.
While upholding the conversion of Ladakh into a Union Territory under Article 3, the Court left unresolved the query regarding Parliament’s power to convert a state into a Union Territory. Additionally, it dismissed contentions asserting that the Centre couldn’t unilaterally annul Article 370, emphasizing that after the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution in 1957, its powers transferred to the Jammu and Kashmir legislature.
Moreover, the Supreme Court mandated the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir before September 2024, while asserting that presidential power under Article 370(1)(d) didn’t necessitate obligatory consultation or collaboration with the state government.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, reflecting on the historical backdrop, aligned with the majority view in most aspects. However, he diverged on issues related to the Prem Nath Kaul case and the amendment of Article 370 through Article 367, stressing the necessity of following prescribed procedures for amendments.
Furthermore, Justice Kaul recommended the establishment of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation Committee to investigate human rights violations by both state and non-state actors since the 1980s. He underscored the urgency, emphasizing the need to address inter-generational trauma and regain trust.
The Court’s decision, a pivotal moment in the constitutional trajectory of Jammu and Kashmir, marked the culmination of a protracted legal battle, paving the way for the restoration of statehood and democratic processes in the region.