More than four years following the scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) special status due to the abrogation of Article 370, and the subsequent reorganisation of the state into two Union territories, J&K and Ladakh, the Supreme Court is set to announce its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision.

The judgment was reserved by a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, on 5 September after 16 days of hearing the petitioners, the Centre, and J&K administration.

The Bench comprises of Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant.

Justice Kaul is set to retire on 25 December, while the remaining three judges are in line to be the Chief Justice of India.

The court heard a batch of 23 petitions, some of which were filed prior to the changes made on 5 August 2019 and challenged Section 35A of the Constitution, a provision that granted J&K the authority to make special laws for its permanent residents.

Several of the petitioners, who began their arguments on 2 August, argued that Article 370 was intended to be a temporary measure, in effect only until the Constituent Assembly of the former state made a decision either way.

However, they pointed out that since the term of the Constituent Assembly ended in 1957, the provision had become permanent and was immune to any constitutional process.

The claimants asserted that no merger agreement existed between the Union of India and the then Maharaja of J&K but only an Instrument of Accession (IoA). Consequently, they stated there was no relinquishment of sovereignty. They further argued that the IoA restricted the Parliament’s legislative authority over the state, ensuring its residents would have a greater say.

The petitioners argued that the method of revoking the special status, through Presidential orders issued on 5 and 6 August 2019, during the time when J&K was under the President’s Rule, amounted to a fraud on the Constitution.

Dismissing the allegations, both the Central government and the Jammu & Kashmir administration insisted that they adhered to the due process in making the changes.

In response to the petitioners’ questioning of Parliament’s ability to adopt the role of the Constituent Assembly, the government clarified that the words ‘Constituent Assembly’ in Article 370(3) can be read only as “Legislative Assembly”.

The Centre argued that when under President’s Rule, the powers of the J&K Assembly stood vested with the Parliament,which was, therefore, within its powers to legislate for the state.

The modifications to Article 370 were labeled as “historic” by the Centre. It further asserted that these changes “brought unprecedented development, progress, security and stability to the region, which was often missing during the old Article 370 regime”.

In the course of the hearing, the Bench also raised questions on the claim of the provision becoming permanent and wondered why it was then placed in Part XXI of the Constitution which deals with “temporary, transitional and special provisions”.

Among the petitioners were IAS officer Shah Faesal and activist Shehla Rashid. They, however, withdrew their petitions before the hearing started.