Prime Minister Narendra Modi made this statement on Monday, December 11, in response to the Supreme Court's Constitutional bench ruling on the legality of Article 370's abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir. The choice made today isn't just about rules; making India more grounded, similar to a splendid light of expectation for a superior future shows we're cooperating.

The Indian Supreme Court agreed unanimously that Jammu and Kashmir's special status, according to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, is only a temporary thing. This decision is because of what the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Narendra Modi, did in August 2019, shortly after they started their second term.

In its judgment, the highest court additionally mandated the Election Commission of India to organize elections for the Jammu and Kashmir assembly by September 30, 2024, with the restoration of statehood to occur at the earliest opportunity. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, delivering the verdict, remarked, "History illustrates that the constitutional integration was a gradual process, not a sudden application of the Constitution of India after 70 years. It was the culmination of an integration process.

Examining seven crucial facets of the Supreme Court's verdict:

The Significance of Three Concurrent Judgments

Upon the assembly of the bench, CJI Chandrachud highlighted the presence of three simultaneous judgments on the issue.

CJI, on behalf of himself and Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, presented one judgment, accompanied by a concurring opinion from Justice SK Kaul. Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurred with both.

The verdict addressed three primary areas, as outlined by the CJI:

The validity of the Presidential order concerning the lack of recommendation from the J&K Constituent Assembly.

The validity of the Presidential rule imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in December 2018 and its subsequent extensions.

Constitutional Validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act

The court deliberated on the constitutionality of the J&K Reorganisation Act, which bifurcated the State into two Union Territories (UT).

Validity of President's Rule Imposed in December 2018

Regarding the imposition and subsequent extensions of the President's rule in December 2018, the apex court indicated that it wouldn't adjudicate on this matter as it was not challenged by the petitioners. The court further noted limitations on the Union's power in states during the proclamation of Presidential rule.

Every decision made by the Union on behalf of the State during the Presidential rule is not subject to challenge, as this could bring the state's administration to a standstill," stated the CJI while announcing the verdict.

The court does not accept the petitioner's argument that the Union cannot take actions of irreversible consequences in the State during Presidential rule, the court emphasized.

In rendering a verdict on the sovereignty of the former state during its accession to India under Maharaja Hari Singh, the court clarified that Article 370 did not imply the retention of any aspect of sovereignty or internal sovereignty.

"The proclamation of the Maharaja explicitly stated that the Constitution of India would supersede. Consequently, the paragraph of the Instrument of Accession ceases to exist," affirmed the court.

The verdict underscored a notable absence in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir regarding any reference to sovereignty. Describing the accession terms as an instance of 'asymmetric federalism,' the court affirmed, "The State of Jammu and Kashmir lacks internal sovereignty distinct from other states."

Furthermore, the court asserted that the integration of J&K into India is delineated in Articles 1 ("India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States") and 370 of the Constitution.

The SC's Reasoning Behind Terming Article 370 as 'Temporary' 

The court determined that Article 370 served as a provisional measure attributed to "war conditions in the state."

"Textual examination also reveals its temporary nature. The marginal note explicitly designates it as temporary and transitory," the court decreed.

Court's Pronouncement on President's Authority Over Constituent Assembly 

The court affirmed the action taken by then-President Ramnath Kovind in issuing Constitutional Order (CO) 273, which revoked the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir.

"The President is not bound by the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly. The J&K Constituent Assembly was envisioned as a temporary body," decreed the court.

The Chief Justice of India emphasized that asserting the discontinuation of authority under Article 370(3) post the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly would halt the integration process," stated the CJI in the ruling. The court also mentioned, "The issuance of CO 273 through Presidential power was not deemed malicious.

Why the Supreme Court Supported the Formation of Ladakh 

Regarding the validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, the court noted that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta addressed the apex court regarding the restoration of J&K's statehood.

"In light of the SG's submission, we deem it unnecessary to determine the validity of the reorganization of J&K into a Union Territory," the court stated.

In a constitutional rollercoaster, the court gave Ladakh the Union Territory status thumbs-up, but when it came to turning states into Union Territories, they left Parliament hanging like a cliffhanger in a suspense movie

The court ordered the Election Commission of India (EC) to conduct J&K assembly elections by September 30, 2024, emphasizing the prompt restoration of statehood.

In a concurring judgment, Justice SK Kaul highlighted human rights violations in the state, advocating for acknowledgment and reconciliation. He recommended establishing a Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate violations since the 1980s, emphasizing a time-bound process and a non-criminal, dialogue-enhancing approach, leaving the formation details to the government.