New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench has rejected the case of the petitioners, and has said that Article 370 was a temporary provision in Jammu and Kashmir.
“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 CJI said.
The power of the President under Article 370(3) to issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist subsists even after the dissolution of the JK Constituent Assembly.
Jammu and Kashmir did not retain sovereignty when it joined India and its constituent assembly ceased to exist the moment it merged with India, the Supreme Court said.
“The J&K constituent assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the Constitution. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President,” said Chief Justice Chandrachud.
The Supreme Court, however, explained why the state continued to enjoy special status even after its merger with India, despite the state not having “internal sovereignty”.
“When the constituent assembly ceased to exist, the special condition for which Article 370 was introduced also ceased to exist. But the situation in the state remained, and thus the Article continued,” the Supreme Court said.
