“Constituent assembly while drafting it decided that…the legislature cannot change” the status of Article 370, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued on behalf of the petitioners. “That is the element of permanency,” he added. The “political act of abrogation of Article 370 was to achieve some political objective de hors the provision of law”, he argued, adding that it was a “mosaic of illegalities”.
A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also allowed bureaucrat Shah Faesal and activist Shehla Rashid to withdraw their petitions challenging the 2019 government decision. The bench, also comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, recorded a statement by the Centre that its latest affidavit in the case shall not be relied upon to argue on the aspect of constitutionality.
The Indian government defended its decision to abrogate Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court. The affidavit argued that the move led to unprecedented stability and progress in the region, with improved functioning of educational and public institutions.
More than 20 petitions are filed in the Apex Court challenging the Central Government s decision of August 5, 2019, to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution. PAGD has also filed a petition in the Supreme Court.