NEW DELHI: On Monday, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a number of petitions that contest the repeal of Article 370. A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will determine the constitutionality of the Center’s August 5, 2019, decision to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted the former state of Jammu and Kashmir special status. The Supreme Court began its 16-day, all-day hearings in August, and on September 5 it reserved its decision.The verdict was expected to be delivered by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud’s five-judge Constitution bench, per the cause list posted on the Supreme Court’s website for Monday, December 11. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant make up the remaining members of the bench. Following a 16-day hearing, the supreme court had reserved its decision in the case until September 5. Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri, and others representing the Centre, as well as the intervenors defending the repeal of Article 370’s provisions, were heard by the top court during the proceedings. Prominent legal experts, such as Dushyant Dave, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah, and Kapil Sibal, had presented arguments in support of the petitioners. The lawyers had discussed a number of topics, such as the constitutionality of the Center’s decision to repeal Article 370, the legality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which divided the former State into two Union Territories, and objections to the June 20, 2018, imposition of Governor’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir and the December 19, 2018, and July 3, 2019, extension of President’s rule. In 2019, the Constitution bench was tasked with considering petitions contesting the repeal of Article 370 and the legality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which created the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh out of the former State. On August 2, the arguments in the case had started. The top court had questioned during the hearing who could suggest that Article 370 be revoked in Jammu and Kashmir when there isn’t a constituent assembly there, whose approval is needed before such a move can be taken. The highest court had further inquired as to how Article 370, which the Constitution expressly stated was temporary, could become permanent following the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in 1957. Some of the petitioners who opposed the repeal of Article 370 had contended that the provision could not have been revoked because the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly had drafted the State’s Constitution during its term, which ended in 1957. They had claimed that since the Constituent Assembly was no longer in existence, Article 370 became permanently applicable. The Centre had maintained that there was no “constitutional fraud” involved in the removal of the clause giving the former State of Jammu and Kashmir its special status.
