RAS question
In December 2023, the Supreme Court's verdict on the abrogation of Article 370 held that:
Correct answer: (C) The abrogation was constitutionally valid and Article 370 was a temporary provision.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370 as constitutionally valid and held that Article 370 was a temporary provision.
Explanation
The December 2023 Constitution Bench judgement upheld the abrogation because Article 370 was treated as a temporary arrangement, not a permanent limit on the Union's constitutional power. The Court held that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain internal sovereignty after accession and the adoption of the Constitution of India. It also upheld CO 273, the Presidential declaration through which Article 370 ceased to operate, as a valid exercise of power and described it as the culmination of the constitutional integration process. The judgement added a governance direction: the Election Commission of India was to take steps to conduct elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly by 30 September 2024.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) The Court did not strike down the abrogation; it upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential declaration by which Article 370 ceased to operate.
- (B) The judgement rejected the idea that Article 370 had become permanent and held, from its historical context and placement in Part XXI, that it was temporary.
- (D) The Court upheld CO 273, issued through the Article 370 Presidential route, rather than holding that only Parliament could abrogate Article 370 directly.
Concept
This tests asymmetric federalism, temporary constitutional provisions, and the President's powers under Article 370. It recurs in RAS because Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional status links federalism, emergency-era governance, judicial review and contemporary polity.