The Supreme Court was informed on Wednesday that Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was not an unchecked power but rather a means to apply the Constitution to the state. Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for petitioner Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, stated that the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly did not intend to abolish Article 370 and instead allowed its continuity. Khan has challenged the two constitutional orders issued by the Centre on August 5 and August 6, 2019, which revoked Article 370.
In a hearing before a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, it was argued that Article 370 served as a medium through which the Constitution would be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir, rather than being an unbounded authority. The petitioner’s contention is that the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir decided to maintain Article 370 and did not wish for its abrogation.
The case revolves around the constitutional validity of the orders issued by the Centre to revoke Article 370. This move by the government effectively ended Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, which granted the state autonomy in various matters except for defense, foreign affairs, and communications. The hearing in the Supreme Court is aimed at addressing the legal aspects and ramifications of the revocation.
