In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023)

Introduction 

This case deals with the constitutional validity of the Union of India's abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories in August 2019. The petitioners challenged the constitutional orders and reorganisation act on grounds of violation of federalism and procedural requirements. The core issue was whether the President could unilaterally abolish Article 370 without the J&K Constituent Assembly's recommendation. 

Facts 

• Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947, joining J&K to India due to Pakistani military threat. 
• In 1949, Yuvraj Karan Singh proclaimed that the Constitution of India would govern J&K's relationship with India. 
• Article 370 governed the relationship, allowing Parliament to make laws for J&K subject to state government consultation/concurrence. 
• The J&K Constituent Assembly adopted the J&K Constitution in 1957 and was subsequently dissolved without recommending Article 370's removal. 
• In 2018, J&K's Chief Minister resigned, the Legislative Assembly was dissolved, and President's Rule was imposed under Article 356. 
• In August 2019, the President issued C.O. 272 (applying entire Constitution to J&K) and C.O. 273 (abolishing Article 370). 
• Parliament passed the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcating J&K into two Union Territories. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether Article 370 was temporary or had acquired permanent status. 
• Whether the entire Constitution could be applied to J&K under Article 370(1)(d). 
• Whether Article 370's abrogation without the J&K Constituent Assembly's recommendation was valid. 
• Whether the President's Rule proclamation and extensions were constitutionally valid. 
• Whether the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 was valid under Article 3. 
• Whether conversion of a state into Union Territories during President's Rule was valid. 

Court's Observations 

• On Temporary Nature: The Court held Article 370 was a temporary provision under Part XXI "Temporary and Transitional Provisions" designed to address special circumstances until constitutional integration. 
• On Presidential Power: While paragraph 4 of C.O. 272 was unconstitutional for substituting "State Legislature" for "Constituent Assembly", the President retained inherent power to abolish Article 370 after special circumstances ended. The Constituent Assembly's "recommendation" would not have been binding on the President. 
• On Sovereignty: J&K became an integral part of India after the Instrument of Accession. Article 370 represented asymmetric federalism, not sovereignty. 
• On President's Rule: Actions during President's Rule cannot be rejected merely for having irreversible impact. Parliament can perform constitutional functions for the state during such rule. 
• On Reorganisation: The bifurcation was valid under Article 3 as state views are not binding, requirements were suspended during President's Rule, and Parliament had approved the reorganisation. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370 and J&K's reorganisation into two Union Territories. The Court concluded that Article 370 was a transitional provision enabling constitutional integration, not a permanent feature. The President possessed authority to abolish Article 370 upon determining special circumstances had ended. The reorganisation process was constitutionally valid under Article 3. The Court directed elections for the Union Territory of J&K by September 30, 2024, noting the Government's assurance to restore statehood.