SC declines reference to larger bench in Article 370 case; holds no conflict between Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash decisions.

Case Name: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution
Date of Judgment: March 02, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 253
Bench: Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay K. Kaul, Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Hon’ble Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, and Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant.

Held: The Constitution Bench held that there was no conflict between Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1959) and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968). Accordingly, it declined to refer the matter concerning the abrogation of Article 370 to a larger bench of seven judges.

Summary: The challenge related to the validity of Constitution Orders 272 and 273 (2019) which abrogated Article 370 and removed the special status of J&K. Petitioners contended that Prem Nath Kaul required approval of the J&K Constituent Assembly for any Presidential Orders, and after its dissolution, such powers ceased. Since Sampat Prakash upheld Presidential powers even post-dissolution, it was argued there was a direct conflict requiring reference to a larger bench. The Supreme Court clarified that Prem Nath Kaul concerned legislative competence of the Yuvraj before the J&K Constitution was adopted and dealt only with interim arrangements requiring Constituent Assembly ratification. By contrast, Sampat Prakash directly addressed the President’s continuing power under Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly had ceased to exist. Thus, the two cases operated in distinct factual and legal contexts. The Court further held that Sampat Prakash was not per incuriam, as it did not contradict Prem Nath Kaul.

Decision: The Court refused to constitute a larger bench, holding that the legality of the abrogation of Article 370 would be examined by the existing five-judge Constitution Bench.