[Live Updates From Supreme Court] Kashmir -Article 370 Hearing

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran challenges the following state actions (as per WS)

1.Para (c)(ii) of the Proclamation f President’s Rule in the State of Jammu and #Kashmir vide. GSR 1223(E) dated 19.12.2018, and extended for a further period with effect from 03.07.2019

 Concurrence given by the Respondent No.2 State enabling the President of India to issue Constitution of India (Application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir), Order 2019, numbered C.O. 272, dt. 05.08.2019. (Concurrence not available in the public domain)

Constitution of India (Application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir), Order 2019 numbered C.O. No. 272, dated 05.08.2019. (Vol. 3, p. 494)

 Declaration Under Article 370(3) Of the Constitution numbered C.O. No. 273 dated 06.08.2019. (Vol. 3, p. 496)-

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (Act No. 34 of 2019) which received the assent of the President on 09.08.2019. (Vol.3, p.505)

Bench has risen for lunch

Raju Ramachandran: As per Art. 370, when it came to matters with respect to Pre-decided issues in the IoA, there was a need for “consultation”. However, in new matters, it’s “concurrence” of Government of J&K.

Now, your Lordships, the relevance of this provision rests upon the fact that the will of the people was always taken into consideration when it came to the application of any major changes to the State.

The Acceptance letter issued by Lord Mountbatten stated that the IoA was to be ratified by the people of J&K. However, due to the integral nature that the State soon possessed, it was no longer required.

IoA was executed by Maharaja Hari Singh on 27th October, 1947.

He was the ruler of J&K.

Sr. Adv. Dinesh Dwivedi - Two judgements of the CB exist which are contradictory.

J. Kaul - We are aware of it. Let’s proceed.

RR - We will reach that stage. I will first discuss the Instrument of Accession. Then the Constitution of J&K, then that of India and its applicability to J&K.

1. Whether a temporary power can be utilised by the State under the garb of the President’s Rule to make irreversible changes to the federal relationship which exists between the State and the Union without the participation of the elected government in power, thereby altering the structure of the State and splitting it into two.

2. Whether Art. 370 has the mechanism for alteration of the relationship and whether the same can be flouted to make such changes.

Raju Ramachandran: Before proceeding with the list of dates, I wish to explain the issue at hand in a nutshell (submits 7-page document).

The key question in these matters is whether the Centre has the authority to make such drastic changes to a State under the guise of a temporary power due to President’s Rule.

We have also challenged the impugned order which allowed the State’s concurrence for the proclamation under Art. 272. We should be provided these documents.

However, an application has been made for the production of the impugned order.