The State of Jammu and Kashmir did not possess sovereignty.
CONCLUSION:
112. On the basis of the analysis, I record the conclusions as follows:
a. In light of this Court’s prior finding in Prem Nath Kaul, the State of Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of internal sovereignty despite Maharaja Hari Singh signing the IoA with the Dominion. Article
370 of the Constitution recognized this internal sovereignty by recognizing the Constituent Assembly of the State;
b. A combination of factors, such as Article 370’s historical context, its text, and its subsequent practice, indicate that Article 370 was intended to be a temporary provision;
c. Article 370(3) contained the mechanism to bring the temporary arrangement to an end, and in turn, to de-recognize the internal sovereignty of the State and apply the Constitution of India in toto;
d. Since Article 370 is meant to be a temporary arrangement, it cannot be said that the mechanism under Article 370(3) came to an end after the State Constituent Assembly was dissolved;
e. The power of the President under Article 370(3) was unaffected by the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. The President could exercise their power anytime after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, in line with the aim of full integration of the State. Hence, C.O. 273, which declares that Article 370 shall cease to operate except as provided, and was issued under Article 370(3), is valid;
f. The power to issue C.O. 272 without the concurrence of the Government of the State is valid, as the power of the President is not limited by the concurrence of the Government of the State in this case.
(From the SC Verdict, December 11, 2023)