Supreme Court Declines to Reconsider Article 370 Abrogation Ruling

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed review petitions challenging its earlier judgment upholding the Article 370 abrogation. This article had conferred special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. 

The review petitions included one by the Awami National Conference. They questioned the correctness of the Supreme Court’s December 2023 decision.

Review Petitions Dismissed

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reviewed the petitions on May 1. The bench also included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna. The Court concluded that there was no error on the face of the record. 

“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,” the Court stated.

Background on the Article 370 Abrogation

In August 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370, which granted special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. This decision also led to the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. 

The Supreme Court upheld this decision in December 2023. It stated that Article 370 was always intended to be a temporary provision. However, the Court did not rule on the legality of the 2019 law that enabled this bifurcation. 

Instead, it recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta. It claimed that statehood would eventually be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. This aspect of the ruling has been a point of contention.

Reactions and Criticisms

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the abrogation of Article 370 and dismiss the review petitions has sparked significant debate. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman criticized the judgment, calling it “disturbing.” 

He argued that it had a profound impact on federalism. Nariman feels that it allowed the Union government to circumvent Article 356 of the Constitution. It restricts the imposition of the President’s Rule in a state to a year.

Adding to the criticism, Fali S Nariman, a veteran jurist and Senior Advocate, expressed disappointment. His disappointment was mainly over the lack of any dissenting opinions in the case. The absence of dissent has raised concerns about the judiciary’s role in maintaining a balance of power between the central and state governments.

Final Words 

The Supreme Court’s refusal to reconsider its decision regarding the Article 370 abrogation is a big development. It marks another significant chapter in the ongoing debate over the constitutional and political future of Jammu and Kashmir. As the region adapts to its new status, the promise of eventual statehood remains a critical issue for its residents. For more such news, stay tuned at Rajesh Kshetry.