Giving Article 370 permanent status will undo over 70 years of work to fully integrate J&K with the Union, says SC

A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that Article 370 was intended to “enhance constitutional integration between the Union and the State of Jammu and Kashmir” and not cause any “disintegration”.

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant on December 12 during the judgement on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories. | Photo Credit: ANI

The Supreme Court on Monday said an interpretation that Article 370 attained a permanent character after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957 would have undone over 70 years of “collaborative” work to integrate the State with the Union of India.

A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that Article 370 was intended to “enhance constitutional integration between the Union and the State of Jammu and Kashmir” and not cause any “disintegration”.

The Chief Justice said abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 only made Jammu and Kashmir on par with the other States. The entirety of the Indian Constitution would now apply to Jammu and Kashmir.

The argument by the petitioners that Jammu and Kashmir would perpetually retain its special status after the Constituent Assembly dissolved in 1957 without a positive recommendation on whether or not to abrogate Article 370 would only “lead to freezing of the integration contrary to the purpose of introducing the provision”.

“If the contention of the petitioners on the interpretation of Article 370 vis-à-vis the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly is accepted then Article 370(3) would become redundant and the provision would lose its temporary character,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed.

Article 370(3) allowed the President to issue a public notification, with the prior recommendation of the Constituent Assembly, declaring Article 370 inoperative.

The court has now held that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President.

“The President has the power to issue a notification declaring that Article 370 ceases to operate without the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly. The continuous exercise of power under Article 370(1) by the President indicates that the gradual process of constitutional integration was ongoing. The declaration issued by the President under Article 370(3) was a culmination of the process of integration and as such is a valid exercise of power,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed.