New Delhi: The Indian Supreme Court is currently actively involved in the hearings of petitions that challenge the revocation of Article 370, which granted status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. This significant constitutional matter has gained attention with a five-judge constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud conducting day, to day hearings.
During the hearings, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium presented arguments before the Bench. He contended that the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Constituent Assembly never intended for Article 370 to be revoked. He emphasized that the vision of the J&K Constituent Assembly was for the Constitution of India to be applied to J&K with modifications and exceptions.
As evidence, he referred to Section 147 of the J&K Constitution, which prohibits any amendments aimed at altering provisions of the Constitution of India as they apply to J&K. Additionally, Chief Justice Chandrachud raised a question about whether the Presidential Order [CO 272] had the authority to amend Article 370(3) using an interpretative provision known as Article 367. In response, Subramanium clarified that exercising powers under Article 356 does not provide authorization under Article 370.
This particular case has been a topic of discussion ever since more than 20 petitions were filed, contesting the Central government’s decision in 2019 to revoke Article 370 and thereby ending the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. As a result, the state was divided into two Union Territories.