Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the decision on social media platform X, stating it is a “beacon of hope, a promise of a brighter future, and a testament to our collective resolve to build a stronger, more united India.” The PM described the ruling as a “resounding declaration of hope, progress, and unity” for the people of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh.
https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1734106830845133108
Chief Justice Chandrachud, while reading the judgement, emphasized that every decision made by the Centre on behalf of a state can’t be subject to legal challenge as it will lead to the administration of the state coming to a standstill. He clarified that Article 370 was a temporary provision, intended as an interim arrangement until the J&K Constituent Assembly could ratify the Indian Constitution.
The apex court dismissed the argument that the Union government couldn't take irreversible actions in the state during Presidential rule. The court reasoned that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain sovereignty when it joined the Union of India.
The Court also affirmed that Article 370 was designed for the constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union and not for disintegration. It ruled that the President could declare Article 370's cessation, and the concurrence of the state government was not required for applying all provisions of the Constitution under Article 370(1)(d).
The apex court also directed the Election Commission to hold Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections by September 30, 2024. It said that in view of Centre's submission on restoration of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, it directs that statehood shall be restored as soon as possible.
After 16 days of hearings, the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on September 5.
The central government, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had defended its decision to abrogate Article 370, asserting there was no “constitutional fraud” in repealing the provision that accorded special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, had argued that Article 370 was no longer a temporary provision, having assumed permanence post the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. He contended that Parliament could not have declared itself the legislature of J-K to facilitate Article 370's abrogation, as it wasn't authorized by Article 354 of the Constitution.
The Central government, on August 5, 2019, had announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 and bifurcated the region into two union territories.
(Inputs from ANI)
