The Supreme Court will deliver its much-anticipated verdict on the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, on Monday.

The landmark case, encompassing 23 petitions challenging government action, has been under review by the Supreme Court for an extended period. After 16 marathon days of hearings and persuasive arguments presented by both sides, the court reserved its judgment on September 5. 

A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, will pronounce the verdict on Monday. Their decision will hold immense significance, determining whether the abrogation of Article 370 was carried out in accordance with the Constitution and legal principles.

Eighteen lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Dushyant Dave, and Rajiv Dhawan, presented arguments challenging the validity of the Centre’s decision while the Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and other legal experts, defended its actions as being completely logical and appropriate.

Centre’s Argument 

The Centre argued that the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly automatically brought about the creation of the Legislative Assembly. This, they claim, empowers the Centre to take action with the consent of Parliament when the Legislative Assembly stands adjourned during periods of President’s rule. 

They further asserted that this process adheres to the Constitution and does not violate the federal structure between the central and state governments.

Petitioners’ Argument 

The petitioners have accused the Centre of arbitrarily disregarding the state’s rights and constitutionally enshrined Legislative Assembly.

They argued that before dividing the state, obtaining the consent of the people, represented by their elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly, was a fundamental requirement. By bypassing this crucial step, the Centre has encroached upon the state’s autonomy and undermined the fundamental principles of Centre-State relations.

The petitioners further argued that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have been “deprived of representation” in both the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha for four long years. This denial of their elected representatives amounts to a strangulation of democracy in the region, they argued. 

The parliamentary ethics committee will present its report on the cash-for-query allegations against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in the Lok Sabha today.

The committee will suggest parliament to expel Ms Moitra from parliament.

The Opposition is expected to ask for a division of votes on the report. The BJP has, however, prepared for this and issued a whip to its MPs to remain in the house.

Six members of the ethics committee had voted in favour of the report. Four members belonging to the Opposition gave dissent notes. The Opposition has called the report a “fixed match”. 

Ms Moitra and Opposition MPs had walked out of the ethics committee meeting on November 2 after questioning the way the meeting was conducted. The committee, however, had shot back saying she did not cooperate and left in order to avoid answering more questions.

The Trinamool Congress MP has called Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, who filed the complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), her “jilted ex”. Following the complaint, Mr Dubey had led the call to investigate the allegation that Ms Moitra gave her parliament login ID to businessman Darshan Hiranandani to target the Adani Group and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Though Ms Moitra has refuted the cash-for-query allegations, she admitted to giving her parliamentary login ID to businessman Darshan Hiranandani.

In an affidavit, Mr Hiranandani alleged the Trinamool MP shared her MP email so that he could send her information and she could raise questions in parliament. He alleged she later gave him her parliament login and password for him to post the questions directly.

The ethics committee had reached out to the Information Technology Ministry and the Home Ministry to check alleged misuse of the parliament login ID and password by Ms Moitra.

At least 403 Indian students have died abroad since 2018 due to various reasons including natural causes and accidents, the government said today. Out of the 34 nations, the most deaths occurred in Canada.

The data was presented in the Rajya Sabha by Union Minister V Muraleedharan, who said that 403 Indian students have died abroad since 2018.

According to data submitted by the ministry, Canada has reported 91 deaths of Indian students since 2018 followed by the United Kingdom (48), Russia (40), the United States (36), Australia (35), Ukraine (21), Germany (20), Cyprus (14), Italy and the Philippines (10 each).

He also emphasised the Centre’s commitment to the safety and well-being of Indian students abroad, pledging to address individual cases and work toward preventing any untoward incidents in the future. He said that heads of mission and senior officials regularly visit colleges and universities to interact with Indian students studying there.

“The safety and security of Indian students abroad is one of the foremost priorities for the Government of India,” he said.

“In case there is any untoward incident, it is immediately taken up with the concerned authorities of the host country to ensure that the incident is properly investigated and the perpetrators are punished, he added.

The distressed students are also offered comprehensive consular assistance, including emergency medical care, boarding, and lodging when needed, he said.

When asked about the high number of deaths of Indian students, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said that a high number of students were also going abroad to study.

“I don’t know if this is an issue that merits taking up with the government. There are individual incidents where there has been foul play and others… Our consulates do reach out to families, we also take it up such cases with the local authorities,” Mr Bagchi told reporters at the weekly briefing.