SC upholds constitutional validity of order abrogating article 370; Court directs Centre to restore J&K statehood, conduct assembly elections by September 2024

A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, had reserved its verdict on as many as 23 petitions in the matter on September 5 this year, after 16 days of hearings. The bench also comprised Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

CJI DY Chandrachud read out the verdict. He said that Jammu and Kashmir held no internal sovereignty after accession to India and that there was no prima facie case that the President’s orders were mala file or extraneous exercise of power. While the court says the reorganisation of the erstwhile state into Union Territories in 2019 was a temporary move, it directs Centre for the restoration of statehood.

Article 370: We direct that restoration of statehood in Union Territory of J&K shall be done at the earliest, says CJI

CJI says ‘we hold exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of Constitution as valid’

We uphold validity of decision to carve Union Territory of Ladakh out of Jammu and Kashmir, says CJI

We uphold validity of decision to carve Union Territory of Ladakh out of Jammu and Kashmir, says CJI

“We have held that Article 370 is a temporary provision,” says Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud as five-judge SC bench delivers verdict on pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir.

We direct that steps be taken by EC to conduct elections of J&K Assembly by Sep 30, 2024, says CJI

We hold the president seeking concurrence of union and not state is valid, all provisions of Indian constitution can be applied to J-K: CJI

Article 370: CJI says recommendation of Constituent Assembly of J-K was not binding on president of India

When Constituent Assembly of J-K ceased to exist, special condition for which Article 370 was introduced ceased to exist: CJI

Article 370: Constituent Assembly of J&K was never intended to be permanent body, says CJI

Article 370 of Constitution was interim arrangement due to war conditions in state, says CJI

CJI says Article 370 of Constitution was temporary, president’s power to revoke it still exists

Article 370: J&K does not have internal sovereignty different from other states of the country, says CJI

J&K became integral part of India, this is evident from Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution: CJI

Article 370: Every decision taken by Centre on behalf of state during presidential rule can’t be challenged, says CJI

Article 370: SC rejects petitioners’ arguments that no irreversible action can be taken by Centre during President’s rule

CJI says SC need not adjudicate on validity of presidential proclamation in J&K as petitioners have not challenged it