The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench pronounced its verdict on the contentious abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories. The apex court upheld the government’s move to revoke Article 370, emphasizing the need for prompt steps to conduct elections in the assembly by September 30 next year. The reorganization of Ladakh as a Union Territory was also affirmed.
Full Story:
The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, delivered a crucial judgment after 16 days of deliberations. The court validated the abrogation of Article 370, emphasizing that the provision, revoked on August 5, 2019, was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the erstwhile state. The reorganization of Ladakh as a Union Territory was also upheld. Furthermore, the court directed the central government to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024, and urged the swift restoration of statehood.
Source: India Today
Prominent political figures shared their perspectives on the verdict. Karti Chidambaram expressed his support for conducting elections promptly, highlighting the importance of people having their electoral representatives. Shiv Sena(UBT) MP Arvind Sawant welcomed the decision but stressed that certain critical issues, such as the rehabilitation of Hindus and curbing terrorism, need immediate attention. Meanwhile, BJP President JP Nadda praised the Supreme Court’s validation of the government’s decision, underscoring the historic inclusion of Jammu and Kashmir into the mainstream.
Advocate and petitioner Barun Sinha termed the verdict as historic, celebrating the court’s endorsement of Article 370’s abrogation. However, Ghulam Nabi Azad expressed sadness, acknowledging the discontent among the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Former Congress leader Karan Singh urged acceptance of the decision, emphasizing the need to focus on the upcoming elections rather than dwelling on negativity.
Source: Mint
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in a separate but concurring judgment, emphasized that Article 370 was intended to be a temporary provision, designed to gradually align Jammu and Kashmir with other Indian states. The court clarified that the requirement of the J&K constituent Assembly’s recommendation in Article 370 could not be interpreted in a way that rendered the larger intention redundant. Moreover, the court stated that the power of the President to issue the notification to cease Article 370 persists even after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly.
The Supreme Court’s directive for the central government to restore Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood expeditiously underscores a crucial aspect of the verdict. The court’s recognition of Article 370 as an interim arrangement during war conditions reflects a textual reading indicating its temporary nature. Additionally, the call for elections by 2024 demonstrates the court’s commitment to democratic processes and governance in the region.
Source: Hindustan Times
In response to reports of J&K leaders being put under house arrest, LG Manoj Sinha dismissed them as baseless, asserting that no political arrests or house arrests had occurred. Despite diverse opinions, the consensus remains on respecting the Supreme Court’s decision and working towards the region’s stability and progress.
