This article is more than 2 year old.

Abrogation of Article 370: These are the legal hurdles the govt could face

Mini

The Centre, in a carefully engineered move, abrogated Article 370 through a Presidential Order and not through the Parliament. The decision, however, has evoked sharp responses on either side, with several questions being raised about the legality of the decision.

Abrogation of Article 370: These are the legal hurdles the govt could face
Home Minister Amit Shah today revoked the Special Status allowed to Jammu and Kashmir by announcing the abrogation of Article 370 in Rajya Sabha.
The Centre, in a carefully engineered move, abrogated Article 370 through a Presidential Order and not through the Parliament. The decision, however, has evoked sharp responses on either side, with several questions being raised about the legality of the decision.
Legal challenges that potentially await the government over abrogation of Article 370:
Need for amendment
-- A presidential order under Article 370 (3) required the recommendation of the ‘Constituent’ Assembly. It has been amended to ‘Legislative’ Assembly by the presidential order. Since, currently there is no assembly in J&K, the power of the Legislative Assembly rests with the Governor. It is on the Governor's recomendation that Article 370 has been abrogated.
However, experts say, that amendment from ‘constituent’ to ‘legislative’ Assembly needs to precede the presidential order abrogating Article 370. Article 370(3) says ‘before’ the presidential order, the concurrence of the constituent assembly is required. This presidential order assumes the presence of the amendment.
Excessive delegation - Legal question can be raised about ‘excessive delegation’. An Assembly is an elected, representative body. On the other hand, the governor is a representative of the centre. Can the ‘recommendation’ of the governor be used to replace the opinion and recommendation of an elected body for abrogation of Article 370?
Legal precedent --  Supreme Court judgment of 2016 in ‘SBI vs Santosh Gupta (Judgment Authored by Justice Nariman) -- "Sub- clause (3) of Article 370 makes it clear that this Article shall cease to be operative only from such date as the President may by public notification declare. And this cannot be done under the proviso to Article 370 (3) unless there is a recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State so to do."
This judgment makes it clear that Article 370 is not temporary. It is permanent, unless the constituent assembly so recommends. No such recommendation has come from the assembly.
Basic structure doctrine – The Supreme Court, through various judgments, has declared that ‘basic structure’ of the constitution can't be amended or changed. Is Article 370 a part or basic structure? Can it be amended?
Instrument of Accession: Abrogating Article 370, technically, alters the foundation of J&K accession to India.
Potential international legal challenges
UNSC Resolution -- Resolution No. 47 of the UNSC allowed Kashmiris the right to self-determination through a plebiscite. Abrogation of Article 370, and eliminating the relative autonomy, could be construed as a violation of the UNSC resolution.
Shimla Agreement -- The treaty was signed between India and Pakistan in 1972, post the introduction of Article 370. The agreement had called for a status quo to be maintained with respect to Kashmir.
Geneva Convention -- As per Article 49, ‘an occupying power’ shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory that it ‘occupies’.