The Supreme Court has declined to review its December 2023 judgment, which unanimously endorsed the Union government’s August 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 that granted special status to Jammu & Kashmir.
Article 370 was removed through a presidential order issued on August 5, 2019.
“The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” said the bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
The review petitions were considered by the judges in their chambers through circulation on May 1.
Review petitions in the apex court are not heard in open courts and are usually considered in judges’ chambers, unless specifically directed otherwise.
The Supreme Court has declined to review its December 2023 judgment, which unanimously endorsed the Union government’s August 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 that granted special status to Jammu & Kashmir. Article 370 was removed through a presidential order issued on August 5, 2019. (ANI)
Centre misleading people’: Opposition's ‘Article 370’ jibe at BJP after J&K twin terror attacks
Unlock exclusive access to the latest news on India's general elections, only on the HT App. Download Now! Download Now!
Considering a bunch of review petitions assailing the judgment, a five-judge bench found “no error apparent on the face of the record” that could warrant a relook at the verdict.
“The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” said the bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud. The other members of the bench included justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna (since retired). The review petitions were considered by the judges in their chambers through circulation on May 1. The order was, however, released on Tuesday.
Those approaching the court seeking review included the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Awami National Conference, advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan and Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement. All of them were parties before the court in the original proceedings that culminated in the December 11 verdict.
Review petitions in the apex court are not heard in open courts and are usually considered in judges’ chambers, unless specifically directed otherwise. A petitioner is required to demonstrate errors apparent on the face of record to get a review plea entertained because a review plea is not heard like an appeal.
As one of the judges on the bench -- justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, retired on December 25 2023, justice Bopanna was inducted in the new bench for the consideration of the review plea.
The December 2023 verdict by a five-judge called the abrogation the “culmination of the process of integration” of the erstwhile state into the Union of India. In a historic decision that ended a chapter that started with the ascension of Jammu & Kashmir to India in 1947 at a time when the region’s political future was uncertain, the judges declared the abrogation to be a perfectly valid exercise of power by the President, ruling that Article 370 was always meant to be a temporary provision.
The judges were also in unison about the validity of the two constitutional orders (COs) issued in August 2019 by the President in applying all provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K and the cession of Article 370, declaring that the President was not required to obtain the approval of the J&K constituent assembly (which was dissolved in 1957) or the J&K legislative assembly before notifying under Article 370 that “this article shall cease to be operative”.
The 2023 judgment maintained that the abrogation of Article 370 was a “policy decision” and it “completely falls within the realm of the executive” to assess whether there existed special circumstances necessitating a special solution in the form of the abrogation.
The judgment had further directed the Election Commission of India to conduct polls to the J&K legislative assembly by September 30, 2024, and asked the Centre to restore statehood to the region “as soon as possible”.
Congress didn’t revoke Art 370 in J&K for appeasement politics, says Amit Shah
The top court, however, chose not to give a ruling on whether the reorganisation of the state of J&K into two Union territories of Ladakh and J&K was constitutionally permissible, pointing at the Centre’s statement that statehood of J&K would be restored eventually.
Penning a separate judgment, justice Kaul, also implored the Centre to set up a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” for a structural investigation into violation of human rights in J&K by both State and non-State actors, and lay down a framework for restoration of social fabric, coexistence and reconciliation.
