Supreme Court Expedites Article 370 Cases, No Oral Mention Needed
The Supreme Court directed its registry to urgently list cases related to the abrogation of Article 370 within two days, stating that no oral mention is required.
Photo by Samyak Bothra
The Supreme Court has instructed its registry to fast-track the listing of cases challenging the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, stated that there was no need for lawyers to orally mention these cases for urgent listing, as the court had already given directions for their expedited hearing.
This move signals the Supreme Court's intent to quickly address the constitutional challenges surrounding the 2019 decision to revoke Article 370 and reorganize the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. It's a procedural step, but a crucial one, indicating that the court is ready to hear these significant matters soon.
मुख्य तथ्य
Supreme Court directed urgent listing of Article 370 cases.
No oral mention is required for these cases.
The cases challenge the abrogation of Article 370.
The decision to abrogate Article 370 was made in 2019.
UPSC परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Constitutional provisions related to J&K (Article 370, 35A, Article 1, Schedule 1).
Federalism and Centre-State relations, especially in the context of special provisions and state reorganization.
Powers of the President and Parliament in amending or abrogating constitutional provisions.
Role of the Supreme Court in judicial review of constitutional amendments and executive actions.
Concept of 'Constituent Assembly' and its relevance post-abrogation.
Impact on fundamental rights and citizenship in J&K.
दृश्य सामग्री
Article 370: From Special Status to Legal Challenge
Chronological sequence of key events related to Article 370, its abrogation, and the ongoing legal process in the Supreme Court, providing context to the expedited listing.
Article 370, a temporary provision, governed J&K's relationship with India for decades. Its abrogation in 2019 marked a significant constitutional change, leading to widespread legal challenges now awaiting the Supreme Court's final verdict.
- 1947Maharaja Hari Singh signs Instrument of Accession with India, limiting jurisdiction to Defence, Foreign Affairs, Communications.
- 1949Article 370 incorporated into the Indian Constitution, granting special status to J&K.
- 1954Presidential Order introduces Article 35A, defining 'permanent residents' of J&K and their special rights.
- 1957J&K Constituent Assembly dissolves, having adopted J&K's own constitution. Debate on Article 370's 'temporary' nature intensifies.
- 2019 (Aug 5)Presidential Order C.O. 272 declares all provisions of Indian Constitution applicable to J&K, effectively abrogating Article 370. J&K Reorganisation Act passed, bifurcating J&K into two UTs.
- 2019 (Aug-Oct)Multiple petitions filed in Supreme Court challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the J&K Reorganisation Act.
- 2023 (Aug-Sep)Supreme Court conducts extensive hearings on the batch of petitions challenging Article 370 abrogation.
- 2023 (Dec)Supreme Court reserves its judgment on the Article 370 abrogation cases.
- Current NewsSupreme Court expedites listing of Article 370 cases for pronouncement of verdict, no oral mention needed.
Jammu & Kashmir: Before and After 2019 Reorganisation
Illustrates the geographical transformation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, highlighting the areas impacted by the abrogation of Article 370.
Loading interactive map...
और जानकारी
पृष्ठभूमि
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) since its incorporation in 1949. This provision allowed J&K to have its own constitution, flag, and autonomy over all matters except defence, foreign affairs, and communications.
Article 35A, derived from Article 370, further empowered the J&K legislature to define 'permanent residents' and grant them special rights and privileges. The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947 formed the basis for J&K's relationship with India.
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
On August 5, 2019, the President of India issued a Constitutional Order (C.O. 272) superseding the previous C.O. 1954, effectively applying all provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K.
This was followed by a statutory resolution in Parliament recommending the abrogation of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). These actions have been challenged in the Supreme Court, raising significant constitutional questions regarding federalism, presidential powers, and the basic structure. The current news indicates the Supreme Court is expediting the hearing of these petitions, signaling its readiness to address these crucial matters.
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. With reference to the abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court has recently directed its registry to fast-track the listing of cases challenging the abrogation of Article 370. 2. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, converted the erstwhile state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, both with legislatures. 3. Article 370 was originally incorporated into the Indian Constitution as a temporary provision. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Statement 1 is correct as per the news. The Supreme Court has indeed instructed its registry to fast-track the listing of cases challenging the abrogation of Article 370. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, converted the erstwhile state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). Statement 3 is correct. Article 370 was explicitly titled 'Temporary Provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir' in Part XXI of the Constitution.
2. In the context of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements: 1. It allowed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to have its own Constitution and flag. 2. Its abrogation required the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which ceased to exist in 1957. 3. Article 35A, which defined 'permanent residents' of J&K, was introduced through a Constitutional Amendment Act passed by the Parliament. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Statement 1 is correct. Article 370 granted special status to J&K, allowing it to have its own constitution and flag. Statement 2 is incorrect. While Article 370(3) stated that the President could declare the article inoperative on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K, the Assembly ceased to exist in 1957. The abrogation in 2019 was done by interpreting 'Constituent Assembly' as the 'Legislative Assembly' of the state, and then by suspending the state assembly and exercising its powers through Parliament. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 35A was introduced through a Presidential Order (The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954), not a Constitutional Amendment Act passed by Parliament. This order was issued under Article 370.
3. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the reorganization of states and Union Territories in India?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: C
Statement A is correct (Article 3). Statement B is correct (Article 3 proviso). Statement D is correct (Article 169). Statement C is NOT correct. While the President refers the bill to the state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period, the Parliament is NOT bound to accept or act upon the views of the state legislature. This highlights the unitary bias in India's federal structure regarding state reorganization.