Abrogation of Article 370

On 5 August 2020, the Supreme Court of India passed judgment on a petition filed by Jammu and Kashmir's government, in relation to its application to the Court under Article 37(3) for an injunction restraining all members of the State legislature from voting on bills that have been introduced in the State Assembly since the declaration of state of emergency. The Supreme Court ruled that the application was not relevant to Article 370, as it would only apply to bills that affect the internal affairs of the State.

}

On 5 August 2020, the state government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a Press Statement announcing that it would withdraw its application for an injunction. On the same day, it announced that it was withdrawing the Press Statement and had issued an Order of Dissolution. The State government stated that it had been unable to get support from the Federal government and had consequently withdrawn the application. The same day, the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir requested the Federal President to dissolve the assembly for the time being.

On 6 August 2020, while the petition was on hearing, the Constitution Bench of India issued an order of abrogation, which restored the status quo ante between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India. This court order made the original petitioners, Jammu and Kashmir, state subjects, rather than subjects of a particular political entity, as they had been before the Assembly declared itself a legislative house.

In this article, we take a closer look at how ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 effected the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir. ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 had implications for many aspects of Jammu and Kashmir's policymaking procedures. It resulted in the invalidation of a significant number of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, and was one of the principal reasons behind the withdrawal of the State government from the Federal Union of India on the advice of the Attorney General.

The law was known as a "juridical rule". It allowed the legislature to override legal restrictions on its power to legislate by interpreting the Constitution itself. In many cases, Jammu Kashmir laws were considered to be "absolute and without limitation." The state's practice of interpretation of the Constitution led to the rejection of statutory obligations, and an abuse of discretion in other instances. The constitution had not been subjected to review since the 1950s.

The ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 also resulted in the invalidation of a number of laws that had already taken effect in Jammu Kashmir. Such laws included the following:

The ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 had repercussions on the right to private life, particularly with regard to the rights to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and assembly, freedom from arrest and torture. It was cited as a reason for the withdrawal of the State government from the Federal Union. The case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which in August 2020 ruled that the ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 was in contravention of the provisions of Article 19 (freedom of speech).

This law was declared null and void, as it infringed upon fundamental human rights. The State had also violated the right to privacy. The court concluded that the ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 did not grant to the legislature the power to interfere with the freedom of speech and did not grant the legislature the power to restrict freedom of speech as implied by the right to privacy, as Article 19 does. the Right to Freedom of Speech. Thus, Article 370 had been declared null and void.

However, the court did uphold the validity of the Right to Privacy in certain areas of the Constitution. For instance, it upheld the constitutional validity of provisions providing for the right of free speech under the Fundamental Rights; it also upheld the constitutionality of a provision permitting the legislature to regulate the practice of the broadcasting industry. On the whole, the court ruled that it could not recognize a right to privacy, or an absolute right to privacy.

The ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 had a major impact on the constitutional balance of powers between the legislature and the executive. The power of the executive was thus curtailed in favor of the legislature. The right of the State legislature to legislate remained paramount until such time that the right to privacy is restored to full strength in the Constitution. at the earliest.

The Abrogation of Article 370 had a significant impact on the economic stability of Jammu Kashmir. The implementation of this law was considered to have a crippling impact on the trade sector, finance, and the economy of Jammu Kashmir. As a result, there was a large fall in investment funds, a contraction in growth rate, and a decline in employment

On 5 August 2020, in the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court declared that ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 was void. On this day, Jammu and Kashmir declared its unilateral statehood as an independent nation. The Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to separate from India was not legally binding. As such, ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 is now considered null and void.

On 15 August 2020, in a case of Jammu-Kashmir Case, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Jammu and Kashmir asking for ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370. The petition was based on Article 37(2) of the Constitution of India. On this date, in a petition filed by the Union of India, the Federal Court of Delhi ruled that Article 370 violated Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens.

On 4 January 2020, the Federal Court of Delhi ruled that the constitutional validity of ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 had been upheld in a case of Union of India vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir. Further, on 13 February 2020, in a petition filed by the Union of India, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir ruled that the constitutional validity of ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 had been upheld in a case of State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Union of India. Further, on 12 June 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 in a case of Union of India vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir.

The legal position is complicated since the federal constitution of India has provided certain provisions that are exclusive to J&K and its princely states. While some of these provisions include special provisions on the reservation of seats in Jammu & Kashmir legislature on the basis of religion and caste, these provisions were not applicable in other states of India.

The legal challenges to ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 in Jammu Kashmir were all based on the contention that the state had the right to maintain a separate state within the purview of Article 370 on the ground that Jammu Kashmir is a princely state. Though the state maintains the right to conduct its own internal affairs, it is an integral part of India. However, the High Court and the Supreme Court have refused to find merit in this contention.

The constitutional arguments advanced by the advocates in support of ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 in Jammu Kashmir are that the federal government of India cannot allow the state to establish a separate state within the purview of Article 370, even on the basis of the argument that the state is a princely state. This argument, they say, fails to recognize the fact that the provision of Article 370 is meant to cover situations where the territory is disputed. Further, they argue that the federal government cannot use the provision in a way that would nullify the rights of the people of Jammu Kashmir to be free and independent.

Some of the prominent Indian lawyers who are fighting the case on behalf of Jammu Kashmir are: Sajan Gopalaswamy, Arun Kumar Srivastava and Yashpal Singhal. The case will continue to be argued before the Supreme Court of India in the coming months.

In a recent episode on a similar topic in Jammu Kashmir, the court issued a verdict that it was not the right of the federal government to abrogate Article 370 in such a manner as to affect the right of the people to freedom of movement. The court had found that this particular provision was meant to provide a safety valve for the constitution and therefore the federal government could not use it to circumvent the basic fundamental rights of the people of Jammu Kashmir.

In another instance, the Supreme Court of India had ruled in favour of the petitioner state of Jammu Kashmir, stating that the Constitution of India was not an instrument which can be abrogated by the federal government by merely passing an executive order. The court stated that there was no provision in the Indian Constitution that allowed the federal government to pass an executive order that would nullify the Constitution or the constitutional rights of the people of Jammu Kashmir.

Thus, the constitutional position is very complex and intricate in regard to ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370. In Jammu Kashmir. Even though the High Court of Jammu Kashmir and other high courts in the rest of India have ruled against ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370, this provision remains an integral part of our Constitution.