Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – Landmark Cases
| Case Name | Section | Rules(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 INSC 1058 | Section 3 Section 4 Section 13 Section 14 | Reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir; Parliament's powers under Article 3; creation of Union Territories; application of constitutional provisions | The Supreme Court decided a group of petitions challenging the 2019 changes to Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional status and its reorganisation into two Union Territories. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the steps that made Article 370 inoperative. It held that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain separate internal sovereignty after its integration into India. The Court upheld the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh. It did not finally decide whether the former State of Jammu and Kashmir could constitutionally be converted entirely into Union Territories because the Union Government assured the Court that statehood would be restored. The Court held that the President's Rule arrangement allowed Parliament to exercise the powers of the State Legislature in the circumstances of the case. It also directed that elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly be held by 30 September 2024 and that statehood be restored as soon as possible. The judgment is a major authority on Article 370, federalism and the constitutional process for reorganising territories. |
| Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 432 | Section 14 Section 60 Section 62 | Delimitation of constituencies; powers of the Delimitation Commission; constitutional rules applicable to Union Territories | The petitioners challenged the increase in the number of seats in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the appointment of a Delimitation Commission to redraw constituencies. They argued that the exercise violated constitutional provisions governing the number and boundaries of legislative constituencies. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. It held that Article 170, which governs the composition of State Legislative Assemblies, does not apply to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Union Territory's legislature is governed by the relevant parliamentary law, including the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act. The Court also upheld the legal basis for applying the Delimitation Act, 2002, to Jammu and Kashmir under Section 62 of the Reorganisation Act. The judgment confirmed the legal basis for the delimitation exercise carried out in the Union Territory. |
| K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 894 | Section 60 Section 62 | Different constitutional rules for States and Union Territories; delimitation of constituencies; equality before the law | The petitioners challenged the decision to conduct delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir while not carrying out a similar exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. They argued that the difference in treatment was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They also relied on the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provides for an increase in the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of those States. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. It explained that Jammu and Kashmir, as a Union Territory with a legislature, is governed by a different constitutional framework from that governing States. Article 170, including its restriction on readjusting seats in State Legislative Assemblies before the relevant post-2026 census figures become available, does not apply to the Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory Assembly. Therefore, delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir did not create a right to demand the same exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The judgment clarifies the constitutional distinction between State legislatures and legislatures of Union Territories. |
Case Name
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 INSC 1058
Section
Section 3
Section 4
Section 13
Section 14
Section 4
Section 13
Section 14
Rules(s)
Reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir; Parliament's powers under Article 3; creation of Union Territories; application of constitutional provisions
Case Brief
The Supreme Court decided a group of petitions challenging the 2019 changes to Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional status and its reorganisation into two Union Territories. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the steps that made Article 370 inoperative. It held that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain separate internal sovereignty after its integration into India. The Court upheld the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh. It did not finally decide whether the former State of Jammu and Kashmir could constitutionally be converted entirely into Union Territories because the Union Government assured the Court that statehood would be restored. The Court held that the President's Rule arrangement allowed Parliament to exercise the powers of the State Legislature in the circumstances of the case. It also directed that elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly be held by 30 September 2024 and that statehood be restored as soon as possible. The judgment is a major authority on Article 370, federalism and the constitutional process for reorganising territories.
Case Name
Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 432
Section
Section 14
Section 60
Section 62
Section 60
Section 62
Rules(s)
Delimitation of constituencies; powers of the Delimitation Commission; constitutional rules applicable to Union Territories
Case Brief
The petitioners challenged the increase in the number of seats in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the appointment of a Delimitation Commission to redraw constituencies. They argued that the exercise violated constitutional provisions governing the number and boundaries of legislative constituencies. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. It held that Article 170, which governs the composition of State Legislative Assemblies, does not apply to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Union Territory's legislature is governed by the relevant parliamentary law, including the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act. The Court also upheld the legal basis for applying the Delimitation Act, 2002, to Jammu and Kashmir under Section 62 of the Reorganisation Act. The judgment confirmed the legal basis for the delimitation exercise carried out in the Union Territory.
Case Name
K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 894
Section
Section 60
Section 62
Section 62
Rules(s)
Different constitutional rules for States and Union Territories; delimitation of constituencies; equality before the law
Case Brief
The petitioners challenged the decision to conduct delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir while not carrying out a similar exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. They argued that the difference in treatment was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They also relied on the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provides for an increase in the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of those States. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. It explained that Jammu and Kashmir, as a Union Territory with a legislature, is governed by a different constitutional framework from that governing States. Article 170, including its restriction on readjusting seats in State Legislative Assemblies before the relevant post-2026 census figures become available, does not apply to the Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory Assembly. Therefore, delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir did not create a right to demand the same exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The judgment clarifies the constitutional distinction between State legislatures and legislatures of Union Territories.