News Brief
'There Is No Error': Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions Seeking Review Of Its Article 370 Order
The Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of its December 2023 judgment, which upheld the government's August 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, ending the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
A five-judge bench led over by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud stated, "Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," Indian Express reported.
The bench included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and A S Bopanna.
The petitions were dismissed on 1 May, with the order uploaded to the court's official webpage on Tuesday (21 May).
In its 11 December 2023, ruling, the SC Constitution Bench had unanimously approved the Modi government's decision to abrogate Article 370.
The then five-judge bench included CJI Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant.
Last December, the bench, in three separate but concurring judgments, ordered the restoration of statehood "at the earliest," set a 30 September 2024, deadline for holding Assembly elections in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and upheld the validity of the Centre's decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh from the erstwhile state.
The bench upheld the Constitutional validity of two Presidential Orders —The Constitution (Application To Jammu and Kashmir) Order (CO) 272 and 273 dated August 5 and 6, 2019— making the entire Constitution of India applicable to Jammu and Kashmir and declaring all provisions of Article 370 inoperative.
The bench held that the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir "did not retain an element of sovereignty when" it joined the Union of India.
On the reorganisation of the state into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in 2019, the bench rejected the argument that the Bill for this under Article 3 could only be introduced with the consent of the state legislature, stating it had previously held that such recommendation of the state legislature is only recommendatory and not binding on Parliament.
