Many petitions also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, by which the state was bifurcated into two Union territories in 2019.
Following a marathon hearing spanning over 16 days, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in a clutch of petitions that have challenged the August 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and the subsequent restructuring of the state into two Union territories.
The Constitution bench that heard and reserved the matter comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant.
The hearing commenced on August 2 after a hiatus of over three years, with its last listing dating back to March 2020 when a five-judge bench declined to refer the matter to a larger bench. The reference was sought on the grounds that two previous judgments of the apex court were conflicting with each other, but the bench did not agree with this contention.
The final leg of the proceedings in the matter witnessed extensive arguments and discussions with the petitioners buttressing on the permanent nature of Article 370 and thus, the special status of J&K while the Centre and other respondents emphasising that the provision was always meant to be temporary and that its abrogation was the ultimate step towards complete integration of J&K with the Union of India.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal spearheaded the legal submissions on behalf of the petitioners in the case, followed by a strong line up of other senior counsel, including Gopal Subramanian, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, Zafar Shah, CU Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
While some petitioners brought up the requirement of consent from the constituent assembly for abrogation of Article 370, others questioned the validity of the President’s rule that was in effect when the abrogation was made. A few of these pleas went back to the Instrument of Accession, while some highlighted the Supreme Court’s ruling of 2018 that observed that Article 370 had gained a status of permanence.
