Impact on Federalism

• The lead judgment highlighted that Jammu and Kashmir had relinquished any 'element of sovereignty' post the execution of the Instrument of Accession in 1947.
• Constitutional experts believe these observations will significantly impact federalism, a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution.
• Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna concurred with the lead judgment, solidifying the unanimous stance of the Supreme Court on the matter.
• Legal experts anticipate a lasting impact on federalism, considering it a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
• The judgment's interpretation of J&K's historical context and its relation to the Union could set a precedent for future federalism-related cases.
• The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners' arguments, reasoning that challenging the irreversibility of presidential actions could paralyze everyday administrative functions.
• It emphasized that the exercise of such power must have a reasonable connection to the objective of the Presidential Proclamation.
• The burden of proof was placed on those challenging the President's actions during an emergency to establish a 'mala fide or extraneous exercise of power.'
• The court referred to the precedent set in S. R. Bommai versus Union of India (1994), defining the scope of powers exercisable during the President's rule. This legal reference added weight to the court's justification for upholding the President's authority in the J&K case.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling on Article 370 raises a crucial question: can a state be converted into a Union Territory in India? While the court avoided a definitive answer, it offered some key insights:

Court's Observations

• The court upheld the carving out of Ladakh from J&K, deeming it permissible under Article 3.
• The court did not address the validity of J&K's conversion due to the promised restoration of statehood.
• Views of the state legislature regarding such reorganization are only recommendations, not binding on Parliament.

Concerns and Cautions

• The Chief Justice warned of the negative consequences for autonomy, historical context, and federalism principles.
• Justice Khanna emphasized the "grave consequences" of lost elected government and diminished federalism. Strong and convincing grounds are required for such a conversion.

The Supreme Court's ruling significantly diminishes the state's role in the context of abrogating Article 370. 

• The Court upheld the President's ability to unilaterally notify the cessation of Article 370 under Article 370(3). This bypasses the consultation requirement with the state government stipulated in Article 370(1)(d).
• The justification lies in the perceived equivalence of effects. Applying all Indian Constitution provisions through Article 370(1)(d) is seen as achieving the same outcome as issuing a notification under Article 370(3) to cease its existence. In both cases, the full Indian Constitution applies, rendering the State Constitution inoperative.
• While consultation is deemed irrelevant in this scenario, it would still be required if applying Indian Constitution provisions involved amending the State Constitution.

• The Court's ruling clarifies the President's power in abrogating Article 370, addressing concerns about its dependence on the J&K Constituent Assembly, which dissolved in 1957:
• Despite the Assembly's absence, the Court ruled that the President's power to abrogate Article 370 under Article 370(3) remains and can be exercised "unilaterally."
•  Chief Justice Chandrachud argued that restricting the power after the Assembly's dissolution would "freeze the integration" of J&K into India, contradicting Article 370's intended purpose of gradual assimilation.
•  Article 370 aimed to bring J&K in line with other states over time, making the Assembly's recommendation secondary to this larger objective.
• This ruling grants the President significant unilateral authority in abrogating Article 370, even without the Assembly's input, raising questions about the balance of power and potential impact on J&K's autonomy.

"Asymmetric federalism" refers to a system of federal government where different states within the federation possess varying degrees of autonomy and power. This means that not all states are created equal in terms of their relationship with the central government.

The Supreme Court's verdict on Article 370 clarifies its stance on Jammu and Kashmir's special status within the Indian federation:

• Unlike India's Constitution, the Court argues, J&K's own Constitution lacks any mention of "sovereignty." Therefore, Article 370 is understood as simply a particular arrangement within the broader framework of "asymmetric federalism."
• The Court compares Article 370 to provisions like Articles 371A-371J, which offer special arrangements for specific states. This emphasizes that J&K's status isn't unique but part of a wider pattern of accommodating state-specific needs.
• Accepting J&K's sovereignty based on Article 370, the Court argues, would imply similar claims for other states with special arrangements. This contradicts the fundamental principle of India's federalism, where all states possess the same core characteristic of being part of a single, sovereign nation.
• While acknowledging varying degrees of autonomy among states, the Court underlines that these variations are in "degree," not "kind." All states remain part of the same federal structure, sharing fundamental obligations and benefits.