The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution in Jammu and Kashmir on Monday, December 11. The said article bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of J&K and was abrogated in 2019. According to the cause list uploaded on the apex court website for Dec 11, a five-judge constitution bench would deliver the verdict, reported PTI. The bench is headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprises Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant as its other members.
The top court had reserved its verdict in the matter on September 5 after a marathon 16-day hearing. The arguments had commenced on August 2.
Several petitions were filed challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 that divided the erstwhile state into two union territories - Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The pleas were later referred to a Constitution bench in 2019.
What Happened During Court Hearing
The Supreme Court heard the matter for 16 days noting the arguments put forth by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri and others on behalf of the Centre and the intervenors defending the abrogation of Article 370.
On the other hand, senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah, Dushyant Dave and others spoke on behalf of the petitioners.
They dealt with issues like the constitutional validity of the Centre's August 5, 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370, the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, challenges to the imposition of Governor's rule in Jammu and Kashmir on June 20, 2018 and imposition of President's rule in the erstwhile state on December 19, 2018 and its extension on July 3, 2019, as per a PTI report.
In its observations during the courser of the hearing, the top court had asked who could recommend the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir when no constituent assembly, whose concurrence was required before taking such a step, exists there.
It also asked how can a provision (Article 370), which was specifically mentioned as a temporary provision in the Constitution, become permanent after tenure of the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly came to an end in 1957.