7 Key Questions Answered: Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370

Unravel the complexities of the Supreme Court's historic verdict on Article 370, which altered Jammu and Kashmir's special status. This clear and concise explanation answers 7 crucial questions, from sovereignty and temporary provisions to the impact on J&K's future. Gain insights into the arguments, legal challenges, and potential path forward.

1. What is the recent Supreme Court verdict on Article 370?

The recent Supreme Court verdict upheld the government's 2019 decision to amend Article 370, effectively ending the special status granted to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. The court ruled that the President's order revoking Article 370 was valid and within the Constitution's framework.

2. What arguments did the court use to justify its decision?

The court cited several arguments to support its decision:

• Jammu and Kashmir never possessed sovereignty: The court argued that Jammu and Kashmir never possessed complete sovereignty, as evident from the Instrument of Accession and the provisions of Article 370 itself.
• Article 370 is a temporary provision: The court pointed out that Article 370 was included in the Constitution as a temporary measure and placed amongst temporary and transitional provisions.
• President's power to issue proclamations under President's rule: The court acknowledged the President's power to make significant changes, including dissolving the state assembly, under President's rule, subject to judicial scrutiny.
• Constitution of J&K stands inoperative: Since the Indian Constitution applies fully to Jammu and Kashmir, the state's constitution becomes inoperative.

3. What was the special status of J&K before the abrogation of Article 370?

The special status of J&K conferred by Article 370 included:

• A separate constitution and flag.
• Restrictions on central government's legislative powers in the state.
• Special rights and privileges for permanent residents defined by Article 35A.

4. What are the key changes brought out by the 2019 order?

• The order replaced the Presidential Order of 1954 and dissolved the state of J&K, creating two new union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
• The union territory of J&K will have a legislature like Delhi and Puducherry, while Ladakh will be without one.
• The special status provisions, including separate constitution, flag, and Article 35A, are abolished.
• All laws passed by Parliament become applicable in J&K, including fundamental rights and central government schemes.

5. What were the legal challenges raised against the abrogation of Article 370?

Critics argued that the government's action violated the Constitution in several ways:

• The Presidential order bypassed the requirement of the J&K Constituent Assembly's recommendation.
• The conversion of J&K into a union territory violated Article 3.
• The abrogation of Article 370 without the concurrence of the J&K government was unconstitutional.
• The move undermined the federal structure of India and the unique status of J&K.

6. What are some signs of peace and security in J&K after the abrogation?

• A decrease in stone-pelting incidents and militant activity.
• Reduction in civilian injuries and casualties.
• Arrests of militants and their over-ground workers.

7. What are some suggestions for the way forward in J&K?

• Implement a comprehensive development plan focusing on education, employment, and infrastructure.
• Continue security efforts while promoting peace and reconciliation.
• Engage with all stakeholders in J&K and address their concerns.
• Uphold the principles of democracy, human rights, and justice.