Supreme Court’s Article 370 Verdict: Key Aspects

Sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir:

• Petitioners argued J&K retained sovereignty post-1947, distinct from other princely states.
• The Court noted J&K was listed as a Part III state in the Indian Constitution, and its own constitution declared it an integral part of India.
• The Court concluded that J&K’s sovereignty was effectively surrendered, akin to a merger, when it adopted the Indian Constitution.

Nature of Article 370 – Temporary or Permanent:

• Debates centered on whether Article 370 was a temporary or permanent feature.
• The Court held that Article 370 was always intended as a temporary provision, meant to bridge J&K with India until its constitution was enacted.

The legality of Article 370’s Abrogation:

• The abrogation involved two steps: amending Article 367 to redefine “Constituent Assembly of J&K” and then issuing a Presidential Order to declare Article 370 inoperative.
• The Court upheld this process, stating that the President could have unilaterally abrogated Article 370 after the dissolution of J&K’s Constituent Assembly.

Actions Under President’s Rule:

• The challenge was to the extent of powers exercised under President’s rule in J&K.
• Citing the Bommai ruling, the Court stated that actions under President’s rule must not be mala fide or irrational.
• The Court found no evidence of mala fides in the Union government’s actions regarding J&K.

Why in News:

• Recently, the Supreme Court delivered the landmark verdict on the abrogation of Article 370.