Supreme Court Upholds Abrogation Of Article 370: Live Updates From Judgment Pronouncement

J Kaul : Purpose of Article 370 was to slowly bring Jammu and Kashmir on par with the other States of India. Requirement of recommendation of J&K Constituent Assembly cannot be read in a manner making the larger intention redundant

J Kaul : When the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, it meant only the proviso to Article 370(3) was rendered otiose. But the main provision existed.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul reads out his judgment(concurring).

J Kaul : I have started with historical bacground...my conclusions are more or less the same, except in one issue, regarding Prem Nath Kaul case, I have taken a different route.

#BREAKING CJI : We direct that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the J&K assembly by September 30. Restoration of statehood shall take place as soon as possible.

CJI : The views of the State legislature under Article 3 proviso is recommendatory.

SG stated that statehood of J&K will be restored except for the carving out of the UT of Ladakh. So this issue is left upon.

CJI : (i) Para 2 to CO 272 applying all provisions of Constitution to J&K is valid.

(j) President had the power to issue notification declaring that Article 370 ceases to operate without a recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly. It is a culmination of integration process

CJI : Para 2 of CO 272 amending Article 367 is ultra vires because it modifies Article 370 in effect.

h) Exercise of power by the President under 370(1)(d) is not mala fide. President did not have to take concurrence of State and can act on Union's concurrence.

CJI : e) Article 370 is a temporary power.

f) Power under Article 370(3) did not cease after the J&K Constituent assembly ceased to exist.

g) Article 370 cannot be amended by exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d).

CJI : d) Power of Parliament under Article 356(1) to exercise powers on behalf of State assembly is not restricted to law making powers.

CJI : b) Petitioners did not challenge Presidential Proclamation.

C) Exercise of Presidents' power after the proclamation are subject to judicial review.

CJI : Following conclusions :

a) State of J&K does not retain any element of sovereignty. It does not have internal sovereignty. Article 370 a feature of asymmetric federalism and not soveriengty.