SC on Article 370 abrogation: Apex court says 'five-judge bench competent to hear case', turns down pleas to move matter to larger bench

Saying that a five-judge bench is “competent enough to hear the case”, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to refer the matter concerning the Centre’s 5 August, 2019 decision revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir to a larger bench. The judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant after the order on the issue was reserved on 23 January.

#BREAKING | Five-judge bench to hear pleas against Article 370 abrogation.

SC rejects plea for a 7-judge bench to hear pleas against Article 370 abrogation.

5-judge bench competent enough to hear the case: SC.@utkarsh_aanand with details pic.twitter.com/5O4D4iKqDT

— News18 (@CNNnews18) March 2, 2020

NGO People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association and an intervenor had sought referring the matter to a larger bench. The petitioners had sought reference to a larger bench on the ground that two judgments of apex court – Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 and Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 – which dealt with the issue of Article 370 are in direct conflict and therefore the current bench of five judges could not hear the issue. After hearing arguments on the issue, the apex court had remarked that the case would only be referred to a larger bench if it finds major contradictions in the two judgments, as claimed by the petitioners. Opposing the plea, the Centre had said that abrogation of provisions of Article 370, which granted special status to erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, has become a “fait accompli” leaving sole option to accept the change. [caption id=“attachment_7888591” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of the Supreme Court. AP[/caption] Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had told the bench – also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant – that “the abrogation of provisions of Article 370, has now become a “fait accompli” leaving sole option to accept the change”. Referring to the two earlier judgments, Venugopal had said that they were not related to each other and dealt with different issues. He had said that the verdict in Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir did not deal with Article 370, rather with the question whether the Maharaja had the legislative power or not. While referring to the verdict in Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir, Venugopal had said though it dealt with some aspects of Article 370, it was not in direct conflict with the verdict in the Kaul case and therefore the present issue should not be referred to a larger bench. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Jammu and Kashmir administration, had said he adopts the arguments of the Attorney General and favours no reference to larger bench. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference, had said that he is supporting Centre on the question that no reference is needed to a larger bench. A number of petitions have been filed in the apex court including those of private individuals, lawyers, activists and political parties and they have also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which splits Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. With inputs from PTI