SC Orders J&K Elections By September 2024 | Top Points

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, authored the judgment, affirming Article 370 as a temporary provision and acknowledging the president's authority to revoke it.

In addition, the court upheld the legality of the decision to create the union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019.

Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir didn't possess internal sovereignty distinct from other states within the country. He underscored that all provisions of the Indian Constitution could be applied to Jammu and Kashmir.

"We validate the exercise of presidential power to issue a constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution," stated the CJI, highlighting the integral nature of Jammu and Kashmir within India, as evident from Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution.

Addressing the temporary nature of Article 370, Justice Chandrachud mentioned that it was established as an interim measure due to war conditions in the erstwhile state.

The bench, composed of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Gavai, Surya Kant, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Sanjiv Khanna, commenced pronouncing three separate yet concurring judgments. Justices Kaul and Khanna delivered their judgments separately.

Following a 16-day hearing on multiple petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370, the apex court reserved its verdict on September 5.

Here are the Top developmets:

• We hold the exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of Constitution as valid
  The State of Jammu and Kashmir doesn't retain any sovereignty.
• We hold it does not hold any internal sovereignty after accession to the Union of India
• Petitioners didn't challenge the proclamation.
• The principal challenge is the actions taken after the proclamation.
• A person challenging the exercise of power must prove prima facie malafide.
• The historical context of 370 shows it's a temporary provision.
• Power to abrogate exists.
• Article 370 cannot be amended by procedure outside procedure under 370(1)(D).
• Interpretation clause cannot be used to bypass the procedure.
• The president can issue unilateral notification that Article 370 has ceased to exist -- the did not need the concurrence of state governments.