In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court's Constitution bench upheld the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, addressing a series of petitions that contested the abrogation and the subsequent division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories.
The apex court reiterated that Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir and restricted the Central government's legislative powers in the region, was indeed a temporary provision. "Article 370 was intended for the constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union, not for its disintegration. The President holds the authority to declare the cessation of Article 370," the Supreme Court stated.
But why was Article 370 once considered permanent?
In 2018, the Supreme Court noted that Article 370 had acquired a semblance of permanence over the years, rendering its abrogation seemingly unattainable. This observation stemmed from a petition filed by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha, who contended that Article 370 was a temporary provision that should have lapsed with the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in 1957. She also sought a declaration nullifying the state's constitution.
The genesis of Article 370 traces back to 1947 when Sheikh Abdullah, then Prime Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, alongside Maharaja Hari Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru, drafted it. Abdullah advocated for robust autonomy for the state, opposing its categorization as a temporary provision under the Constitution.
The validity of Article 370 has been a subject of recurrent scrutiny. Can it be deliberated upon in Parliament? Indeed, experts assert that its temporary nature permits parliamentary discourse for potential modifications. Subhash Kashyap, a constitutional expert and former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, emphasized that Article 370 falls under the category of temporary provisions, leaving room for debate and eventual amendments.
Article 370, classified as a 'temporary provision,' grants special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir. Under Part XXI of the Constitution, the state enjoys unique privileges not extended to other states. However, on August 5, 2019, the Central government announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, simultaneously proposing its bifurcation into two Union territories. This monumental decision reshaped the region's constitutional and administrative landscape.
In March 2020, a five-judge Constitution bench declined to refer a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 to a larger bench, affirming the status quo.
