Скачать или смотреть Supreme Court's Verdict On Article 370- Full Video

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul wrote two separate but concurring opinions. Three major points raised were answered as follows:
1. The ‘unique’ and ‘special status’ of Jammu and Kashmir: The Court held that the state of Jammu & Kashmir did not retain any element of sovereignty after its accession to India in 1947. “The purpose of J&K Constitution was to ensure everyday governance in the state and the purpose of Article 370 was to integrate the state with India."
2. Is Article 370 a ‘temporary’ or a permanent provision of the Constitution?: The Supreme Court held that Article 370 is a temporary, transitional provision. CJI took a textual approach and cited evidence of the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution dealing with temporary provisions and said that the “temporary” provision served a purpose in the war-like situation prevailing in the state in 1947.
3. Was Article 370 abrogated effectively? The Court placed reliance on the landmark case of S R Bommai which dealt with the powers and limitations of the Governor under President’s rule and upheld both the proclamations, including the one that gave a new meaning to “constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, as “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.”