Article 370
Advertisement
Supreme Court Rejects Appeals to Reconsider Dec 11, 2023 Ruling on Article 370 Revocation
A bench of five judges headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud considered the pleas in chamber and rejected the demand to have the review petition openly heard in court. In its May 1 order, the bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and A S Bopanna (since retired) held, "Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed."
Jaishankar Highlights Article 370's Barrier to Progressive Legislation in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
Jaishankar elucidated that Article 370, initially intended as a temporary provision within the Indian Constitution, inadvertently fostered an atmosphere of separatism, violence, and terrorism, posing a significant security challenge for the nation. Additionally, it impeded the application of progressive legislation to the regions of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh.
India Criticizes OIC's Remarks on Article 370 as 'Ill-Informed and Ill-Intended'
The OIC reaffirmed solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, calling for international efforts to resolve the issue in line with UN Security Council resolutions. The abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 removed the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Supreme Court upholds abrogation of Article 370, sets September 2024 deadline for holding J&K Assembly elections
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, in their judgment, emphasized that Article 370 was a temporary provision and within the president's authority to annul.
Article 370 Verdict: Supreme Court Rejects Petitioners' Argument on Union's Actions During President's Rule
CJI Chandrachud stated, "The scope of powers exercised by the Union government must be contingent on the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the proclamation (under Article 356 of the Constitution)." He further pointed out that not every action taken by the Union government on behalf of the state government can be contested in courts.
Article 370: J&K leader files affidavit in SC reiterating to uphold Indian Constitution, protect territorial integrity of India
"I am a responsible and dutiful citizen…. I reiterate the oath taken while being sworn as Member of Parliament to preserve and uphold the provisions of the Constitution of India and to protect territorial integrity of India," said the affidavit filed by Lone, who is one of the main petitioners contending retention of Article 370.
Development work undertaken by Centre in J&K not relevant in deciding pleas against Article 370: SC
The Constitution Bench, headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud remarked that the roadmap, given by the Union government, on restoration of statehood of J&K and holding of elections, cannot be an answer to the constitutional challenge and it has to be dealt "independently".
Judgment on Article 370 would end psychological duality of Jammu & Kashmir residents: Tushar Mehta in SC
“Though, since inception of the Constitution, it (Jammu & Kashmir) became an integral and inalienable part of India. There remained a psychological duality, whether induced or otherwise, would end. Judgment going either way -- that position would end,” SG Mehta said.
Article 370 case: No intention to interfere with other special provisions of the Constitution, Centre tells SC
“We must understand the difference between temporary provision, which is Article 370, and special provisions with regards to other states, including the north-east. The Central government has no intention to touch any part (of the Constitution) which gives special provisions to the North East and other regions,” he said, in response to an intervention application filed in pleas challenging the stripping down of the special status granted to Jammu & Kashmir.
No conditional surrender of sovereignty of Jammu & Kashmir with India, notes SC Constitution Bench
Though, various provisions in the Constitution required concurrence with the State but the same did not necessarily undermine the sovereignty of the Union of India, remarked CJI D.Y. Chandrachud during the hearing on the batch of pleas.
Advertisement