New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered its verdict in the batch of petitions filed against the Abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. The apex court has upheld the Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and CJI DY Chandrachud has said that the court stands by the fact that Article 370 is a ‘temporary provision’ and that all provisions of the Constitution are applicable on Jammu and Kashmir. The five-judge bench included Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant apart from CJI DY Chandrachud. While the Chief Justice of India has announced the final verdict in the case, the other judges are now expressing their respective observations..
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has delivered the final verdict on the Article 370 Case where petitions were filed against the Abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. The apex court has upheld the Centre’s decision of abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India taken in 2019. The CJI has also said, ‘J&K Does Not Hold Any Internal Sovereignty After Accession To Union Of India’.
CJI DY Chandrachud, who has led the five-judge Constitution Bench in the Article 370 Case, delivered the final verdict, a unanimous decision made by the five Supreme Court judges. The key observations of the Chief Justice of India are Jammu and Kashmir does not hold any Internal Sovereignty after its accession to the Union of India. It was also mentioned that the effect on presidential power to issue a notification abrogating Article 370, subsists. The observations also said that the exercise of President power for everyday running of business cannot be subject to regular judicial review. There are limitations on power of the union in states when proclamation of presidential rule is in force. The Court, as mentioned by Bar&Bench, said that the power of Parliament to legislate for the State cannot exclude law-making power.
The CJI further said that the principle underlined under 356(1) must be such that action of president must give effect to the object of the proclamation, thus principle which runs through 356(1)(c) says exercise of power must have a reasonable nexus with the object of the proclamation. Thus, SC holds that every action of union on behalf of the state will lead to administration of state to a standstill and is not open.
The Court also said that by issuance of proclamation, the Para 8 of instrument of accession ceases to exist. Neither constitutional text states that Jammu and Kashmir had any internal sovereignty, the proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh in 1949 and constitution thereafter cements it.
The SC made a statement that statehood in Jammu and Kashmir will be restored soon and that the court upholds the decision to carve out a Union Territory out of Ladakh. The Court further directed the Election Commission of India to hold pols under Section1 4 of the Reorganisation Act.
For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Read more on Latest India News on India.com.
