Supreme Court turns down a PIL seeking declaration on constitutionally validity of Art 370

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking a declaration from the court regarding the constitutional validity of the Centre’s abrogation of Article 370.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud emphasised that the court cannot issue such a declaration regarding the Centre’s decision. The court further pointed out it is already considering the issue of its constitutional validity.
“What kind of a petition is this? You are now seeking a declaration by this court that the abrogation of Article 370 is valid. Why should we issue that declaration on your petition? Who has set your client up?” the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The bench noted that the petitioner had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration to the effect that the abrogation of Article 370 (1) of the Constitution and the deletion of Article 35-A were constitutionally valid.
“A declaration cannot be issued by this court with regard to the constitutional validity of the action of the Union Government. In any event, the issue of constitutional validity is pending before the constitution bench,” it said.
The court dismissed the petition, deeming it ‘misconceived’.
A Constitutional Bench consisting of five judges, with the Chief Justice of India at its helm, is hearing arguments on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 and the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
The legislation led to the division of the former state into two union territories, namely Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
Article 35-A, integrated into the Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, granted distinctive privileges and protections to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir while barring individuals from outside the state from purchasing any real estate within its borders.
Furthermore, it also withheld property rights from women who married individuals from outside the state.