Breaking down the judgment on J&K, and its wider implications

The Constitution bench verdict on the abrogation of Article 370 on Monday settled a spectrum of legal issues rendered complex by historical and political context and is nuanced by the idea of “complete integration” of Jammu and Kashmir into India’s constitutional scheme.

The 476-page judgment on 23 petitions dwelled on historical treaties, interpretation of constitutional and legal provisions, procedural proprieties, and principles of sovereignty before authoritatively defining the contours of the contentious provision.

The five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, SanjivKhanna, BhushanR Gavai, and Surya Kant, were unanimous in affirming the abrogation of Article 370, holding the provision to be temporary and agreeing that the President has the power to nullify the special status of J&Kunder special circumstances that, the court held, were exclusively within the domain of the political executive to best judge. 

A look at the key issues raised for and against the Centre’s August 2019 move, and the answers rendered by the Constitution bench, impart an insight into the journey of judicial determination.

Article 370: Permanent or temporary?

The plank of the petitioner's submissions before the court remained that Article 370 had attained a permanent status in the Indian Constitution. They contended that it was an embodiment of a constitutional promise given by the Dominion of India to the erstwhile princely state of its unique status despite its accession in October 1947.

With the dissolution of the constituent assembly of J&K on January 26, 1957, the petitioners argued, Article 370 assumed the status of a permanent provision which could not be nullified by the President.