New Delhi: Was the decision taken by the Centre on August 5, 2019 to abrogate the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution, which bestowed a special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, constitutionally valid?The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its

The Supreme Court is all set to pronounce its verdict on Monday on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the decision relating to the abrogation of Article 370 that granted a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

On August 5, 2019, the Centre repealed Article 370 and bifurcated the then state of Jammu and Kashmir into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

According to the cause list for December 11 (Monday), a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is scheduled to pronounce the verdict.

The other members of the bench are Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, as per the cause list uploaded on the website of the apex court.

On September 5, the top court had reserved its verdict in the matter.

The petitioners opposed to the repeal of Article 370 had argued that the provision could not have been abrogated as the term of the Jammu and Kashmir constituent Assembly ended in 1957, after it drafted the Constitution of the erstwhile state.

The petitioners had contended that Article 370 acquired a permanent status

post the extinction of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.

Defending the decision, the Centre had argued that there was no "constitutional fraud" in annulling the provision that accorded the special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

During the hearing that commenced on August 2, the apex court had asked who could recommend the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir when no Constituent Assembly, the concurrence of which is required before taking such a step, exists there.

The Constitution bench had further asked how a provision (Article 370), which was specifically mentioned as temporary in the Constitution, could become permanent after the tenure of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly came to an end in 1957.

Before reserving the verdict, the bench heard Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V. Giri and others on behalf of the Centre and the intervenors defending the abrogation of Article 370.

Petitioners were represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah and Dushyant Dave, among others.

The petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 which bifurcated the erstwhile state into two Union Territories were referred to the Constitution bench in 2019.

No Comments For This Post, Be first to write a Comment.
Leave a Comment
Enter the code shown:

Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Todays Epaper

English Weekly

neerus indian ethnic wear
Latest Urdu News

Do you think there should be a retirement age in politics?

Can't Say