Supreme Court judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, is set to retire on December 25 and is one of the five judges on the Constitution Bench which reserved judgment on the challenge to the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution, which gave special privileges to Jammu and Kashmir.
The Bench, which was headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, reserved the case for verdict on September 5.
Justice Kaul was the senior most puisne judge on the five-judge Constitution Bench. The judgment has to come before Justice Kaul retires from the court in December.
The heavily-contested case had seen submissions made by both petitioners and the government on the constitutionality of the procedure adopted to dilute the Article and the abolition of Statehood of Jammu and Kashmir. The hearings had spanned 16 days.
The government, represented by Attorney-General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, and advocate Kanu Agrawal, had argued that the dilution was necessary to completely integrate Jammu and Kashmir into the Union of India. The government said the Valley has prospered in the past four and a half years after the dilution of Article 370 in August 2019. It said elections were due in Jammu and Kashmir, which would revert to full Statehood again, once the situation on the ground returned to normal.
Mr. Mehta had said Jammu and Kashmir became a Union Territory in an “extraordinarily extreme situation”. He had claimed that terrorism, infiltration, stone-pelting, and casualties among security personnel had reduced by 45.2%, 90.2%, 97.2%, and 65.9% respectively, post the dilution in 2019.
Also Read: Explained | What is the debate around Article 370?
The petitioners, represented by a battery of senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, had said the Union used brute majority in the Parliament and a series of executive orders issued through the President to divide a full-fledged State into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. They had called it an attack on federalism and a fraud played on the Constitution.
The petitioners had argued that Article 370 had assumed a permanent character as soon as the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly dissolved in 1957 after the framing of the State Constitution. Mr. Sibal said Article 368 (Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution) did not apply to Article 370.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, had said its focus would be on the series of machinations which led to the dilution of Article 370.
The series of events which the Bench may cover in its judgment would include the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislative Assembly by the Governor under Section 53(2) of the J&K Constitution on November 21, 2018.
The proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356 was issued a month later, on December 19, 2018. The Parliament had approved the proclamation of the President on January 3, 2019. The President’s rule was extended in Jammu and Kashmir for six months with effect from July 3, 2019.
On August 5, 2019, the President issued the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order which inserted a new provision, Article 367(4), in the Indian Constitution. This replaced the expression ‘Constituent Assembly of the State’ in the proviso to Article 370(3) with ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’. The same day had seen the Parliament dilute Article 370 and pass the Bill to reorganise the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The next day had seen the President declare that Article 370 had ceased to apply.
