Article 370 Verdict on Monday: Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Hearing

The court held hearings in the high-profile case for a marathon 16 days and reserved its judgment on 5 September.

The apex court held hearings in the high-profile case for a marathon 16 days and reserved its judgment on 5 September.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/ The Quint)

The Supreme Court is on Monday, 11 December, scheduled to deliver its verdict on the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

The apex court held hearings in the high-profile case for a marathon 16 days and reserved its judgment on 5 September.

A five-judge bench heard the case, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.

Key highlights of the hearing so far:

1. During the course of the proceedings, the Centre argued that the dissolution of J&K's Constituent Assembly automatically led to the creation of its Legislative Assembly. On the basis of this, they claim, the Centre can take decisions when President's rule is in effect and the Legislative Assembly stands adjourned.

2. The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the Centre "arbitrarily" and "unconstitutionally" abrogated Article 370, ignoring the former state's rights. In particular, they said that obtaining the consent of the people in a state, represented by members in the Legislative Assembly, is a prerequisite to taking such a decision.

3. The petitioners thus concluded that the Centre encroached upon the former state's autonomy and violated the federal structure of the Constitution.

4. The Centre, however, asserted that its decision was in line with Constitutional principles and in keeping with Centre-state relations.

5. The petitioners also said that the people of J&K had been deprived of representation in the Legislative Assembly and the Lok Sabha for a period of four years, arguing that this did not bode well for democracy.

6. On the issue of autonomy, the Centre also said that J&K had surrendered sovereignty to the Union of India when it signed the instrument of accession, and claimed that the petitioners were "confusing the issue of internal sovereignty with autonomy".

7. When the petitioners brought up the question of a referendum over the issue, citing the Brexit referendum in the UK, the bench led by CJI Chandrachud observed that any such referendum in a democratic country like India must be held through established institutions. Moreover, he said, there is no question of a referendum as per the Indian Constitution.

8. Several high-profile lawyers presented their arguments during the marathon case. While senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Dushyant Dave, and Rajiv Dhawan among others argued on behalf of the petitioners, the argument of the Centre was heralded by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other senior legal minds.