Video Editor: Mohd. Irshad Alam
"The verdict today is not just a legal judgment; it is a beacon of hope, a promise of a brighter future and a testament to our collective resolve to build a stronger, more united India," said Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, 11 December, soon after a Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court said that Article 370 that provided special status to J&K, was a temporary provision of the Constitution of India.
The move by the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came in August 2019, just months after it bagged a second shot at the Centre.
In its verdict, the apex court also directed that steps should be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the J&K assembly by 30 September, 2024 and that restoration of statehood shall take place as soon as possible.
"History shows gradual process of constitutional integration was not going on. It was not as if after 70 years Constitution of India was applied in one go. It was a culmination of the integration process," Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said while reading out the verdict.
Here's a look at seven key aspects of SC's judgment:
Why 3 Concurrent Judgments
After the bench assembled, CJI Chandrachud said that there are three concurrent judgments on the matter.
One by CJI for himself for Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant. There was a concurring opinion by Justice SK Kaul. Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurred with both.
The verdict covered three broad aspects, as the CJI stated:
Whether Presidential order is invalid for lack of recommendation of J&K Constituent Assembly.
Whether the Presidential rule imposed in December 2018 in J&K and its subsequent extensions are valid.
Whether the J&K Reorganisation Act bifurcating the State into two Union Territories (UT) is constitutionally valid.
Validity of President's Rule Imposed in December 2018
On validity of imposing and subsequently extending President's rule, the apex court said that the court "need not adjudicate on this since petitioners did not challenge it."
The court also said that there are limitations on power of the Union in states when proclamation of Presidential rule is in force.
"Every decision taken by Union on behalf of State during Presidential rule is not open to challenge...this will lead to the administration of state to a standstill," the CJI said while reading out the verdict.
"Argument of petitioners that Union cannot take actions of irreversible consequences in the State during Presidential rule is not accepted," the court said.
Why SC Said 'J&K Didn't Retain Sovereignty'
Passing a judgment on the sovereignty of the erstwhile state while its accession to India led by Maharaja Hari Singh, the court said that Article 370 didn't mean it retained an element of sovereignty or internal sovereignty.
"Proclamation of Maharaja stated that the Constitution of India will supercede. With this, the para of Instrument of Accession ceases to exist," the court said.
"There is a clear absence in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to the reference of sovereignty," the verdict highlighted.
Calling the accession terms an example of 'asymmetric federalism,' the court said: "The State of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states."
The court said that J&K becoming an integral part of India is evident from Articles 1 (India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States) and 370 of the Constitution.
Why SC Called Article 370 'Temporary'
The court ruled that Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to "war conditions in the state."
"Textual reading also indicate that it is a temporary provision. Marginal note says it is temporary and transitory," the court ruled.
What Court Said on President's Powers Superceding Constituent Assembly
The court upheld then President Ramnath Kovind's move to issue Constitutional Order (CO) 273 which removed the special status granted to J&K.
"Recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President. J&K Constituent Assembly was intended to be a temporary body," the court ruled.
"Holding that the power under Article 370(3) ceases to exist after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly will lead to the freezing of the process of integration," the CJI stated in the verdict.
"We do not find the use of Presidential power to issue CO 273 was mala fide," the court said.
Why SC Upheld Carving Out of Ladakh
On the validity of J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, the court said that Solicitor general Tushar Mehta has submitted to the apex court on restoration of statehood of J&K.
"In view of the submission made by the SG, we don't find it necessary to determine whether the reorginasation of J&K into UT is valid," the court said.
Citing Article 3 of the Constitution, the court said it allows a portion of State to be made as a UT, thereby upholding the carving out of Ladakh. The court, however, said that the question whether Parliament can convert a state into a Union Territory is "left open."
What the Court Ordered on Elections and Human Rights Violations
The court also directed the Election Commission of India (EC) to conduct elections to the J&K assembly by 30 September, 2024.
"Restoration of statehood shall take place as soon as possible," the court said.
In his concurring judgment on the matter, Justice SK Kaul called out the human rights violations in the state.
Stating that wounds and inter-generational trauma requires healing, Justice Kaul said: "First step towards healing the wounds is the acknowledgement of the acts of violations done by the State and its actors.... truth-telling paves a way for reconciliation."
"I recommend the setting up of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation," he said.
Stressing that the Commission must be set up before memory escapes and that the exercise must be time-bound, Kaul said: "There is an entire generation of youth that has grown up with a feeling of distrust and it is to them that we owe the greatest day of liberation."
Leaving it up to the government to decide the manner in which the commission must be formed, Kaul cautioned that it should not turn into a criminal court but rather a platform to enhance dialogue.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)