Article 370 Gone For Good - Supreme Court Backs Scrapping Of J&K Autonomy

In a juridical proclamation orchestrated by Chief Magistrate DY Chandrachud of India, a quintuple panel of the Supreme Court has adjudicated that Article 370 constituted a transitory provision meticulously contrived to facilitate the amalgamation of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian dominion.

The Apex Court, situated in New Delhi, has affirmed the constitutional soundness of the decision to nullify the special standing accorded to Jammu and Kashmir. In a ruling today, the Supreme Court supported the government's action under Article 370 of the Constitution, emphasizing that Article 370, initially a provisional measure, was instituted to facilitate the integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian union. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, articulating the majority opinion, underscored the transitional nature of Article 370.

The Supreme Court has mandated the conduct of elections in the coming year as a consequence of this decision. It directed that Jammu and Kashmir should expeditiously be brought in alignment with other states and proposed state elections to be conducted no later than September 30, 2024.

Upon its integration with India, Jammu and Kashmir relinquished its sovereignty, and the Supreme Court expounded that its constituent assembly ceased to exist upon this union. Chief Justice Chandrachud elucidated that the J&K constituent assembly, formed solely for the purpose of drafting the Constitution, was not designed to be a perpetual entity, and its recommendations were non-binding on the President.

Despite the dissolution of the constituent assembly, the Supreme Court clarified the persistence of special status for the state post-merger, even in the absence of "internal sovereignty." The court attributed this continuation to the enduring circumstances within the state, prompting the sustained relevance of Article 370.

Highlighting the diverse legislative and executive powers enjoyed by states, the Supreme Court drew attention to the concept of asymmetric federalism, exemplified by provisions like Article 371A to 371J. Emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir lacks internal sovereignty distinct from other states, the court underscored the absence of a unique status.

The bench rendered three distinct judgments. Chief Justice Chandrachud, along with Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant, authored one, presenting their collective perspective. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul provided a concurring judgment, while Justice Sanjiv Khanna delivered a third judgment in concordance with the preceding two.

Article 370, affording Jammu and Kashmir its independent Constitution and decision-making authority in various domains excluding defence, communications, and foreign affairs, was nullified, thereby concluding the state's special status.

Embedded within Article 370 was Article 35A, conferring upon the former state the authority to delineate its recognized permanent residents and bestow exclusive privileges, including access to government employment and property ownership.

The Supreme Court asserted that it deemed unnecessary to scrutinize the validity of the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory. It clarified that this restructuring was a transient measure, serving as a temporary arrangement pending the conduct of elections and the subsequent reinstatement of statehood.