The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a set of petitions that challenge the constitutional abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench comprising of the Bench of Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and BR Gavai, as well as Surya Kant, are hearing the matter.
Over 20 petitions are currently pending before the Supreme Court challenging the Central government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which resulted in the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’S special status. The State was then split into two Union Territories.
Despite some petitioners asking for a reference, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench decided not to refer the group of petitions to ot’ heuristic seven-Judge High Court in March 2020.
The highest court initiated the case on August 2 by asking the petitioners to indicate whether the Constitution makers and Article itself viewed the provision as a permanent or temporary one.
The Court inquired whether the Article was considered a permanent provision due to the absence of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in 1957, which had the authority to recommend the removal of that provision.
On August 4, the highest court questioned whether the Article would be included in the fundamental structure of the Constitution, given that Article 370 of this Constitution became permanent after the dissolution of Jammu and Kashmir’s constituent assembly in 1957.
On August 9, the Supreme Court declared that in a Constitutional democracy like India, people’s views on public issues are sought through established institutions, not through referendums like in the United Kingdom.
The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is not mentioned in the Indian Constitution, and only the India’s Constitution holds binding power, as stated by the top court yesterday.
The Court raised doubts about the validity of ordinances and asked for the removal of Article 370 when the State is under the President’s rule as specified in Article 356.
Get real-time information from today’s hearing here.