A five-member Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, unanimously upheld on December 11 the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, noting that Article 370 was a temporary provision and that the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir had no internal sovereignty.

In the apex court’s view, following the Instrument of Accession and the issuance of the Proclamation dated November 25, 1949, by which the Constitution of India was adopted, the State of Jammu and Kashmir did not retain any element of sovereignty. Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty, the apex court observed.

The Supreme Court also proclaimed that the concurrence of the State government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is pertinent to mention that when Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was revoked by a Presidential Order in August 2019, the erstwhile State was under President’s rule, and it has since been a source of debate whether irreversible decisions could be made in the absence of an elected Legislative Assembly.

In his judgment, the CJI underlined that the Constitution of India was a complete code for constitutional governance. He proclaimed: “The President in exercise of power under Article 370(3) can unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist.”