The Supreme Court decision has been announced on petitions challenging the August 5, 2019, President's order repealing Article 370 which gave special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and allied legislation. The five-judge bench ruled that Article 370 was not a permanent provision and it was included in the Constitution to address the special political circumstances post independence and the President has the power to repeal it under appropriate circumstances. It has been four long years since several petitions were filed questioning the amendments. After the long wait, on August 2, the Supreme Court started hearing the arguments and completed them on September 5, reserving its judgement. The five-member bench consisting of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant gave their endorsement for the Centre's move; with this the special status of Jammu and Kashmir ceases to exist. Along with it, the Supreme Court also approved the decision to separate Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir and make it a Union Territory. It also agreed with the decision to temporarily make Jammu and Kashmir a Union Territory. However, the top court ordered restoration of statehood to J&K soon which the Union government has assured and to conduct assembly election there by September 30.
Also read: Kashmir problem stems from Nehru's mistakes: Amit Shah
The Supreme Court's judgement of Monday is an important one on many levels. One, the state of uncertainties on an issue since the days of independence has come to a conclusion. People argued that Jammu and Kashmir should have autonomy and they were not ready to join along with other states. They believe that their identity and culture can only be maintained through special provisions. Many political parties backed this argument with varying degrees of support. Secondly, special status and rights like this were allocated to many regions including North-Eastern states and Goa. But, no efforts have been made to eliminate their special status. However, the special status of Jammu & Kashmir remained a sensitive issue due to neighbouring nation Pakistan's claims on the region with implications for national integrity and security.
Also read: Disagrees with Supreme court: Congress on Article 370
The main issue on which the court spent most of its time from the very beginning of the hearing was whether Article 370 was a temporary provision or permanent. The bench concluded that even though Jammu & Kashmir had a separate constitution, it was ultimately subordinate to the Indian Constitution, and was designed only as a temporary one for a transition period. Further, Jammu and Kashmir never had internal self-governance. With the decision for accession to India, what little was left of sovereignty was removed. Another issue deliberated on was whether the President has the power to abrogate Article 370. Even though it is right that only the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly has the power to repeal Article 370, that assembly ceased to exist in 1957. Along with the dissolution, that authority would be devolved to the assembly. And when the assembly was dissolved, its powers would be assumed by the President. Hence, the President's order abrogating Article 370 is valid, concluded the Supreme Court. The top court highlighted that it has the jurisdiction to review the validity of constitutional actions taken by the President. However, the court cannot get involved in unimpeachable circumstances when there are no mala fide intent or extraneous exercise of power.
Also read: PM Modi assures to fulfilling dreams of J&K’s ‘resilient people’
Reactions emerging about the verdict have been mixed. The BJP camp, including the Prime Minister, are naturally elated, as it is bound to be being a party for which removal of Article 370 with specialrights is like an article of faith. On the other side, Kashmiri leaders including former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister and National Conference leader Umar Abdullah, PDP leader and former Chief Minister Mahbooba Mufti, former Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, and People's Conference leader Sajjad Gani Lone expressed sorrow and disappointment over the verdict. They indicated that they would continue to fight for their cause. The immediate difference that the verdict with the state's new status with no special rights will makes is that it will pave the way for people who are not native to Jammu and Kashmir will also be eligible to buy land in the region and apply for jobs there.
Also read: Kashmir has no internal sovereignty after accession to India: SC upholds abrogation of Article 370
Changes in law to facilitate these have already been set in motion by the Union government. The decision to grant fresh reservations to some categories in the state also fall in this category and may result in the natives losing their upper hand. Most people in the valley see these as an effort to disturb the demographic and cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir. The Centre has the obligation to ensure that the free hand it gets through this is exercised with care in a way that does not lead to division and disintegration of the people and take the natives into confidence. The Centre is highly vocal about the benefits of bringing the people of Jammu and Kashmir to the mainstream of the country. But the extent to which this succeeds under the Centre's decision and the court judgement which backed it, will depend on to what extent words translate to action.
Also read: Mehbooba Mufti under house arrest ahead of SC verdict on Article 370: PDP