The Supreme Court of India today has rejected the petitioners' case while upholding the temporary status of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. As per the Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrachud the central government holds the authority to assume the powers of a state government through the President's role. 

The Constitutional bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant ruled that the Parliament or President can exercise legislative powers of a state through a proclamation. However, It's essential to note that legal interpretations may evolve, so keeping a check on the latest sources for accurate information is crucial. 

The Supreme Court has also specified various limitations on the exercise of powers after the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356.

The judgment was delivered as part of a series of petitions that contested the 2019 decision by the Central government to abrogate Article 370, which had granted special status to the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.

In total, three judgments were rendered. Chief Justice Chandrachud authored the primary judgment on behalf of himself, Justice Gavai, and Justice Kant. Additionally, Justices Kaul and Khanna each wrote individual concurring judgments.

The court determined that the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) did not possess internal sovereignty and necessitated the consent of the State Government for the application of the Indian Constitution to J&K. It was thus ruled that Article 370 was a temporary provision. The court acknowledged the Solicitor General's statement that the Union would expedite the restoration of J&K's statehood but left the question of the reorganization of J&K into a Union Territory (UT) unresolved. Additionally, the decision to reorganize Ladakh as a Union Territory was upheld.

The following issues were framed by the court:

1. Nature of Article 370 - Temporary or Permanent:

This matter explores whether the provisions of Article 370, which granted special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir, were initially intended to be temporary or if they had assumed a permanent status.

2. Constitutional Validity of Amendment to Article 367:

This issue centers around the constitutional validity of amending Article 367, specifically the substitution of the reference to the 'constituent assembly' by 'legislative assembly as State' under Article 370(1)(d).

3. Application of the Entire Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1):

This query raises the question of whether the complete Constitution of India could have been applied to Jammu and Kashmir under the provisions of Article 370(1).

4. Abrogation of Article 370 - Validity Regarding Lack of Constituent Assembly Recommendation:

This matter questions the validity of the abrogation of Article 370 by the President, considering the absence of a recommendation from the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly as mandated by the proviso to clause (3).

5. Constitutional Validity of Governor's Proclamation Dissolving Legislative Assembly:

This issue delves into the constitutionality of the proclamation issued by the Governor dissolving the legislative assembly of the state.

6. Validity of Presidential Rule Imposed in December 2018 and Subsequent Extensions:

This matter addresses the validity of the proclamation of Presidential rule imposed in December 2018 and its subsequent extensions.

7. Constitutional Validity of J&K Reorganisation Act 2019:

This issue scrutinizes the constitutional validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, which bifurcated the state into two Union Territories.

8. Status of J&K During Proclamation under Article 356 and Conversion into UT:

This matter examines the validity of the status of Jammu and Kashmir and its conversion into a Union Territory during the proclamation under Article 356 and the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

The court concluded that the inclusion of Article 370 in the Constitution was meant for a temporary purpose, particularly in response to the war conditions in the State. The textual analysis of the provision also indicated its temporary nature, as evidenced by its placement in part 21 of the Constitution.

The court also rejected the notion that the discontinuation of the Constituent Assembly, which was authorized to recommend the removal of Article 370, implied the permanent continuation of the article. It emphasized that the President had the authority to issue an order to abrogate Article 370.

Furthermore, the court underscored that Article 370(3) was originally introduced for constitutional integration rather than disintegration. Dismissing the argument that 370(3) could not be utilized after the dissolution of the constituent assembly, the court asserted that such an interpretation would freeze the provision and hinder its intended purpose of constitutional integration.

The Court then upheld the constitutionality of Order 272 (CO 272), which applied the provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370(1)(d). It ruled that the President's exercise of power was not malicious, and the President could unilaterally issue a notification to revoke Article 370. The Court validated Paragraph 2 of CO 272 but struck down the part that amended Article 367.

Notably, the Court emphasized that the President had the authority to issue another order (CO 273) on August 6, abolishing Article 370, without relying on CO 272. It clarified that while CO 272 could not amend Article 367, CO 273 was valid, as it was issued in line with Article 370(3).

The judgment clarified that Jammu and Kashmir lost its internal sovereignty upon accession to India in 1949. The court held that the state became an integral part of India, and the issuance of proclamations, along with the Constitution, solidified this integration.

Case: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019.

Click to read/download judgment.