The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that Article 370 of the Constitution was not a "temporary provision". It was responding to a plea challenging the validity of Article 370, which grants a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The petition was filed by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha, seeking a declaration that Article 370 was temporary in nature. The petitioner had claimed before the high court that Article 370 was a temporary provision that had lapsed with the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957. A Bench of judges Adarsh K Goel and R F Nariman said, "The issue concerned is covered by the judgment of this court in the 2017 SARFAESI matter, where we have held that despite the headnote of Article 370, it is not a temporary provision."
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution confers special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir. It is a 'temporary provision' under Part XXI of the Constitution of India, which deals with "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions." The state has different provisions than all other states, according to the Constitution. For example, till 1965, J&K had a prime minister in place of the chief minister.
History of Article 370
The controversial provision was drafted by Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah did not want temporary provisions for Article 370. He 'iron clad autonomy' for the state.
What are the provisions of Article 370?
Parliament needs Jammu & Kashmir government's nod for applying laws in the state — except defence, foreign affairs, finance, and communications.
The law of citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights of the residents of Jammu & Kashmir is different from the residents living in rest of India. Under Article 370, citizens from other states can not buy property in Jammu & Kashmir. Under Article 370, the Centre has no power to declare financial emergency.
Temporary provision or not?
A petition filed by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha challenged the validity of Article 370 against the Delhi High Court's April 11, 2017 order. The petition had said that the continuance of the temporary provision of Article 370 even after dissolution of Constituent Assembly of J&K, and that of J&K Constitution which has never got the assent of the President of India or Parliament or the government of India, "amounts to fraud on the basic structure of our Constitution".
Supreme Court's order: The apex court said that in its earlier verdict of 2017 in the SARFESI case, it has been already held that Article 370 was "not a temporary provision".
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre said that the matter be heard after some time as similar matters are pending before the court and are to be listed shortly.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan and advocate Shoeb Alam appearing for the Jammu and Kashmir government clarified that other matters which are pending before the apex court relates to Article 35 A of the Constitution and not Article 370 as submitted by the ASG.
Dhavan said that those matter cannot be heard along with the present case, which only deals with Article 370.
BJP vs PDP on Article 370
There is a sharp difference between the views of BJP and its partner PDP in Jammu and Kashmir. The Bharatiya Janata Party has been maintained its stand that Article 370 should be scrapped. However, the alliance of BJP in Jammu and Kashmir, PDP, informed Lok Sabha last month, "There is currently no such proposal under consideration of the Government."