SC To Issue Decision On Appeals Against Article 370 Abrogation Today

Judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Br Gavai, Surya Kant, And Chief Justice Of India Dy Chandrachud Make Up The Five-Judge Constitution Bench That Will Render The Decision Today.

After Hearing The Arguments For Sixteen Days, The Supreme Court Reserved Its Decision On September 5.

In Defense Of Its Decision To Revoke Article 370, The Federal Government Said That There Had Been No “Constitutional Fraud” Involved In Doing Away With The Clause That Gave The Former State Of Jammu And Kashmir Special Status.

Representing The Center Were Attorney General R Venkataramani And Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The Centre Informed The Bench That Many Other Princely States Had Also Joined India Post-Independence In 1947, Subject To Conditions, And That After Their Merger, Their Sovereignty Was Absorbed Into That Of India. Jammu And Kashmir Was Not The Only State Whose Accession To India Was Through Instruments Of Accession.

The Central Government Informed The Bench That Most Of The 565 Princely States That Made Up Gujarat At The Time Of Independence In 1947 Had Restrictions On Land Purchase, Taxes, And Other Matters.

The Center Further Stated That Ladakh Would Continue To Be A Union Territory Whereas Jammu And Kashmir’s Position As A Union Territory Is Merely Transitory And That It Will Eventually Revert To Statehood.

In His Opening Statement, Senior Attorney Kapil Sibal Stated That Article 370 Was No Longer A “Temporary Provision” And That It Had Become Permanent After The Jammu And Kashmir Constituent Assembly Was Dissolved. Sibal Was Speaking On Behalf Of The Petitioners.

He Said That Since Article 354 Of The Constitution Forbids The Parliament From Acting As J&K’s Legislative, It Was Not Possible For It To Do So In Order To Facilitate The Abrogation Of Article 370.

Sibal Had Contended That The Provision Could Not Be Revoked Following The Dissolution Of The Constituent Assembly, Whose Recommendation Was Necessary To Abrogate Article 370, Pointing Out That The Explicit Language Of Clause 3 Of Article 370 Shows That A Recommendation From The Constituent Assembly Was Essential To Removing Article 370.

The Maharaja Of Jammu And Kashmir Acceded To His Sovereignty Over The State’s Territory But Not To His Sovereign Power To Rule And Manage The State, The Jammu And Kashmir High Court Bar Association Informed The Supreme Court.

Jammu And Kashmir Became A Part Of India On A Territorial Basis, And The State Kept All Authority Except For Defense, Foreign Policy, And Communication. Make Laws And Govern, Said Senior Advocate Za Zafar, Appearing For The J-K High Court Bar Association.

In Defense Of Its Decision To Remove Article 370 In Jammu And Kashmir, The Central Government Said That The Modifications Had Put An End To Street Violence, Which Was Planned And Executed By Terrorist Organizations And Secessionist Networks.

The Entire Region Has Seen A “Unprecedented Era Of Peace, Progress, And Prosperity” Since 2019, When Article 370 Was Revoked, According To The Center.

According To The Center’s Plea To The Supreme Court, Life In Jammu And Kashmir Has Returned To Normal Following The Repeal Of Article 370, Ending Three Decades Of Unrest.

A Number Of Petitions Opposing The Repeal Of Article 370 Of The Constitution And The Division Of The State Into Two Union Territories Were Being Heard By The Constitution Bench.

A Number Of Petitions Against The Jammu And Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, Which Divides Jammu And Kashmir Into Two Union Territories—Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh—Were Filed With The Highest Court By Private Citizens, Attorneys, Activists, Politicians, And Political Parties.

The Central Government Divided The Area Into Two On August 5 And Declared That Jammu And Kashmir’s Special Status Under Article 370 Would Be Revoked. Union Territories