SC refuses to accept petitioners’ contention that Union can’t take action having irreversible effect during Prez rule
Pronouncing the verdict on pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Monday said the Supreme Court need not adjudicate on the validity of the President’s rule imposed in Jammu & Kashmir in December 2018.
CJI D Y Chandrachud said that they cannot accept petitioners’ argument that the Union government cannot take actions having irreversible consequences when a proclamation issued by the President under Article 356 is in force.
CJI Chandrachud said, “The scope of powers exercised by the Union government must depend on circumstances for issuing the proclamation (under Article 356 of the Constitution).”
He added that every action taken by the Union government on behalf of the state government is not open to challenge in court.
“Opening up challenges to every decision would lead to chaos and uncertainty and in effect, would put the administration in a state of standstill,” held CJI Chandrachud.
“The pleading of the petitioners indicates that the principal challenge is to abrogation of Article 370 and whether such action could have been taken during the President’s rule,” CJI Chandrachud said.
He added that even if the Supreme Court holds that a proclamation under Article 356 could not have been issued, no material relief could be given in view of the fact that the President’s rule was revoked in the state in October 2019.
CJI Chandrachud is pronouncing the verdict on the batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 2019 Presidential Order taking away the special status accorded to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and its bifurcation into two Union Territories.
On September 5, a Constitution Bench, which included the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, had reserved its verdict after hearing oral arguments from both sides.
Earlier in March 2020, a five-judge Constitution Bench declined to accept the contentions of the petitioners to refer the issue to a larger bench of seven judges.
The 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI N V Ramana, reasoned that the earlier judgments rendered by the top court in the Prem Nath Kaul case and the Sampat Prakash case, dealing with the interpretation of Article 370, were not in conflict with each other.
[With Inputs from IANS]
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Myanmar authorities seize 100 Kg methamphetamine, 13 kg of ketamine in southern region - April 28, 2024
- Centre permits export of 99,150 tonnes of onion to 6 countries - April 28, 2024
- Delhi Congress chief resigns, cites party’s alliance with AAP - April 28, 2024
This is unacceptable verdict !! How can Kapil Sibal, Dushant Dave, Sanjay Hedge & many of his Lawyer friends cannot be wrong. Article 370 cannot be removed even by God or Allah or Christ. It is permanent.
What will Kapil Sibal do ? Go to Switzerland or an island & cool himself ? This verdict is disaster. !! Sr. & Jr. Farooq Abdullah, Mufti Saeed,…etc.., have every right to leave the country of they cannot accept the constitution & is unacceptable. How can CJI be so heartless & ruthless ? Atleast they should be given some place in history or position i.e. Emeritus or Honary position with all expenses paid & Maharaja salary.
I am worried for Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Sanjay Hedge health, wealth. name, merit