Daily Current Affairs : 1-September-2023
In recent news, the Supreme Court of India has been at the center of a significant legal battle. This battle revolves around the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 370 granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The key issues under scrutiny are the constitutionality of Presidential Orders 272 and 273, which played a pivotal role in the revocation of Article 370.
Constitutionality of Orders 272 and 273
Presidential Order 272: Amending Article 367
In August 2019, the then President issued CO 272, a Presidential Order that introduced a vital amendment to Article 367, focusing on the interpretation of the Constitution. CO 272 brought about a crucial change in Article 367, specifying that the “Constituent Assembly” mentioned in Article 370(3) would now refer to the “Legislative Assembly.” This amendment set the stage for alterations to Article 370 itself.
- Key Amendment: CO 272 modified Article 367 to alter the reference from “Constituent Assembly” to “Legislative Assembly.”
- Impact: This change paved the way for potential amendments to Article 370, altering its operative nature.
Operationalizing the Amendment: Presidential Order 273
On August 6th, the President issued CO 273, the second proclamation, which executed the recommendation made by the Rajya Sabha to make Article 370 inoperative. This effectively marked the cessation of Article 370’s operations.
- Execution of Abrogation: CO 273 put the recommendation of Rajya Sabha into effect, rendering Article 370 non-operational.
- Legislative Action: Subsequently, Parliament passed The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, leading to the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories.
Grounds of Challenge
Validity of Constitutional Order 272
The petitioners challenging the abrogation of Article 370 based their argument on the contention that Article 370 had evolved into a “permanent feature” of the Constitution, not subject to revocation by the President.
- Temporary vs. Permanent: The provision was considered “temporary” not due to presidential termination but because it granted the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir the power to recommend changes until the state’s Constitution was established.
- Post-Assembly Dissolution: Once the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, the President lacked the authority to revoke Article 370.
- Conflict with J&K Constitution: The petitioners emphasized that the J&K Constitution barred any amendment to change the application of the Indian Constitution to the state, making CO 272 questionable.
- Constitutional Amendment Procedure: The power to amend the Constitution lies within Article 368, raising doubts about the use of Article 367 for what was essentially an amendment.
Validity of CO 273
The second proclamation, CO 273, triggered further legal scrutiny. Petitioners argued that Rajya Sabha could not assume powers on behalf of the Governor, even under Article 356, which the Legislative Assembly itself did not possess.
- Governor’s Role: The argument delved into the role of the Governor during President’s Rule and contended that the entire process leading to President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 was unlawful.
Important Points:
Constitutionality of Orders 272 and 273
- Presidential Order 272, issued in August 2019, amended Article 367, changing the reference from “Constituent Assembly” to “Legislative Assembly.”
- This amendment laid the groundwork for potential changes to Article 370.
- Presidential Order 273, issued on August 6, 2019, operationalized the recommendation of Rajya Sabha, effectively making Article 370 non-operational.
- This led to the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories through The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Grounds of Challenge
- The petitioners argued that Article 370 had evolved into a “permanent feature” and could not be revoked by the President.
- They contended that Article 370 was labeled “temporary” because it allowed the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir to recommend changes until the state’s Constitution was established.
- Once the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, the President lost the authority to revoke Article 370.
- The J&K Constitution explicitly barred any amendment to change the application of the Indian Constitution to the state, raising questions about the validity of CO 272.
- The power to amend the Constitution is vested in Article 368, not Article 367, which raised concerns about the use of Article 367 for what was essentially an amendment.
- Regarding CO 273, the petitioners argued that Rajya Sabha could not assume powers on behalf of the Governor, even under Article 356, which the Legislative Assembly itself did not possess.
- The petitioners claimed that the entire process leading to President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 was unlawful.
Why In News
The Supreme Court recently convened to hear arguments presented by petitioners who are contesting the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. This landmark case has captured the nation’s attention, as it holds the potential to reshape the constitutional landscape and has far-reaching implications for the future of Jammu and Kashmir. As the legal proceedings continue, citizens across the country eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision on this pivotal matter.
MCQs about The Article 370 Challenge
-
Why did the petitioners argue that Article 370 was a “permanent feature” of the Constitution?
A. Because it could be terminated by the President
B. Because it granted the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir the power to recommend changes
C. Because it was an amendment in Article 368
D. Because the J&K Constitution allowed its revocation
-
What did Presidential Order 273, issued on August 6, 2019, effectively achieve?
A. It amended Article 370
B. It revoked Article 370
C. It granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir
D. It established a new legislative framework
-
What legal concern did the petitioners raise regarding the use of Article 367 for amending Article 370?
A. They argued that Article 367 had no limitations for such amendments
B. They contended that Article 367 could not be used for amendments
C. They claimed that the power to amend the Constitution was vested in Article 367
D. They argued that Article 367 was not part of the Indian Constitution
Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions
