Daily Current Affairs : 12-December-2023
In a landmark 5-0 unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Centre’s abrogation of Article 370, delving into the intricacies of Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional dimensions.
Examining Jammu and Kashmir’s Sovereignty: Court Verdict
The court assessed Jammu and Kashmir’s unique sovereignty during its integration, emphasizing the constitutional setup and the continuous exercise of power under Article 370.
- Constitutional Set-up Analysis:
- Article 1 designates India as a Union of States, with J&K as a Part III state.
- Section 3 of J&K Constitution declares J&K as an integral part of India.
- Continuous Exercise of Power under Article 370:
- Ongoing power exercise indicated gradual constitutional integration.
- President’s declaration under Article 370(3) marked culmination.
- Effect of Yuvraj Karan Singh’s Proclamation:
- Proclamation superseded inconsistent provisions, negating the need for a merger agreement.
- Justice Kaul acknowledged J&K’s internal sovereignty despite the Instrument of Accession.
Assessing the Permanence of Article 370: Court’s Position
Exploring arguments on Article 370’s permanence, the court considered petitioners’ assertions, Kapil Sibal’s argument, and ultimately deemed it inherently temporary.
- Petitioners’ Assertion and Kapil Sibal’s Argument:
- Contention that Article 370 was a permanent part of the Constitution.
- Sibal argued impracticality of abrogation due to the Constituent Assembly’s absence.
- Court’s Perspective:
- Chief Justice and Justice Kaul concurred on Article 370’s temporary nature.
- CJI highlighted indicators of its temporariness.
Legality of Article 370 Abrogation: Examining the Legal Process
The legal process of abrogating Article 370 involved constitutional amendments and presidential orders, with varying perspectives from Justice Kaul and CJI Chandrachud.
- Amendment to Article 367:
- CO 272 amended Article 367, redefining “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.”
- CO 273 sought Parliament’s consent for the cessation of Article 370 clauses.
- Justice Kaul’s View and CJI Chandrachud’s Opinion:
- Justice Kaul upheld the process, endorsing constitutional amendments and parliamentary consent.
- CJI acknowledged validity but questioned the need for altering the Constituent Assembly’s meaning.
President’s Rule and Executive Actions: Legal Scrutiny
Examining actions during President’s rule, the court referenced the Bommai ruling, focusing on the validity standard and burden of proof.
- Petitioner’s Argument:
- Contention that irrevocable actions were taken without state consent.
- Reference to Bommai ruling parameters for President’s rule proclamation.
- Validity Standard and Burden of Proof:
- Emphasis on actions meeting the standard of not being “mala fide or palpably irrational.”
- Rejection of the argument that irrevocable actions imply mala fides.
Important Points:
- Supreme Court Ruling (Article 370):
- Unanimous 5-0 decision upholding Centre’s abrogation of Article 370.
- Jammu and Kashmir’s Sovereignty:
- Constitutional analysis of J&K’s unique status during integration in 1947.
- Emphasis on Article 1 and Section 3 of the J&K Constitution.
- Continuous exercise of power under Article 370(1) leading to gradual integration.
- Yuvraj Karan Singh’s Proclamation negating the need for a merger agreement.
- Justice Kaul’s acknowledgment of internal sovereignty despite the Instrument of Accession.
- Permanence of Article 370:
- Arguments on its permanence, including petitioners’ claims and Kapil Sibal’s argument.
- Court’s perspective on Article 370 as inherently temporary.
- Chief Justice and Justice Kaul concurring on its temporary nature.
- Highlighting indicators of Article 370’s temporariness.
- Legality of Abrogation:
- Legal process involving constitutional amendments and presidential orders.
- Amendment to Article 367 via CO 272 and Parliament’s consent through CO 273.
- Justice Kaul’s endorsement of the process.
- CJI Chandrachud acknowledging validity but questioning the alteration of the Constituent Assembly’s meaning.
- President’s Rule and Executive Actions:
- Legal scrutiny during President’s rule in J&K.
- Reference to the Bommai ruling outlining parameters for President’s rule proclamation.
- Emphasis on the validity standard, requiring actions not to be “mala fide or palpably irrational.”
- Burden of proof on both petitioner and Union government.
- Rejection of the notion that irrevocable actions inherently imply mala fides.
Why In News
In a historic 5-0 unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court decisively upheld the Centre’s abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, emphasizing the constitutional validity of the transformative decision.
MCQs about Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370
-
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the abrogation of Article 370?
A. 4-1 majority in favor
B. 5-0 unanimous decision
C. 3-2 split decision against
D. 6-0 unanimous decision
-
According to the Supreme Court, what was the significance of Yuvraj Karan Singh’s Proclamation in the context of Jammu and Kashmir’s sovereignty?
A. It affirmed the need for a merger agreement.
B. It superseded and abrogated inconsistent constitutional provisions.
C. It declared Jammu and Kashmir an independent state.
D. It emphasized the permanence of Article 370.
-
How did the Supreme Court view the permanence of Article 370?
A. It considered Article 370 inherently permanent.
B. It deemed Article 370 inherently temporary.
C. It asserted the need for a new Constituent Assembly for abrogation.
D. It suggested a referendum for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
-
What legal process was followed for the abrogation of Article 370, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling?
A. Executive order by the President alone
B. Constitutional amendments and presidential orders
C. State legislature resolution
D. Approval through a national referendum
Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions
