Supreme Court's Article 370 verdict today: Core issues being examined in case
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, will pronounce the judgment.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court was set to deliver a verdict on Monday on whether the August 2019 decision of the Union government to scrap Article 370 and bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir into two Union territories was valid.

Also Read: Ahead of Article 370 verdict, J&K cops crack down on social media ‘misuse’
Following a marathon hearing spanning 16 days, the five-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant had on September 5 reserved its verdict.
HT reported on Friday that there are likely to be two judgments, according to people aware of the matter. These judgments may or may not be divided.
The hearing in the case had commenced on August 2 after a hiatus of over three years, with its last listing dating back to March 2020 when another five-judge bench had 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.
Also Read: Ahead of Article 370 verdict, little hope more despair in J&K
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.
A look at the core issues deliberated upon during the hearings.
370 a permanent feature?
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. The Centre and other respondents emphasised 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.
The petitioners, which included parliamentarians from the National Conference party, Kashmiri citizens, former bureaucrats and various organisations, argued for the first nine days and contended that Article 370 was an embodiment of a constitutional promise given by the Dominion of India to the erstwhile princely state of its unique status despite its accession. With the dissolution of the Constituent assembly of J&K on January 26, 1957, they argued, Article 370 assumed the status of a permanent provision which could not be nullified by President.
Countering this, the Centre, through attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, underlined that Article 370 was not an embodiment of any special status to J&K but was “only a stop-gap arrangement” in the process of its “complete integration” with the Union of India.
Adding that the Instrument of Accession, signed in October 1947 by Maharaja Hari Singh of the erstwhile princely state to accede with the Dominion of India, was purely a political act “without any justiciable or legally enforceable commitments”, the Centre added that Article 370 “existed merely to temporarily manage the situation and ensure that a wider timeframe is provided to complete this process of further integration and uniformity qua Jammu and Kashmir”.
Matter of state’s consent
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.
Many petitions also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganization Act, by which the state was bifurcated into Union territories with effect from October 30, 2019, arguing there was no power with the Centre to reorganise a state into two UTs.
The government, supported by various other respondents that were represented through senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, Mahesh Jethmalani and V Giri, also defended its authority to reorganise the state into two UTs, contending there was no constitutional bar against redrawing boundaries of a state if that could promote keeping the integrity of the country intact.
Way forward: Elections and statehood
At the fag end of the hearing, the Constitution bench also sought to know from the Centre to indicate if there was a time frame for granting statehood to Jammu & Kashmir, underlining that restoration of democracy in the region was “very important”.
The Union government refrained from committing to an “exact time frame” for granting statehood to J&K even as it told the court that the election to the legislative assembly for the Union territory of J&K could take place whenever the state and the central election commissions decide. The Centre maintained that the UT status of J&K is “temporary”, but it cannot put forth a specific time frame on when J&K will become a state again in the wake of “extremely extraordinary” history of J&K.
The court had proceeded to hear the pleas despite resistance from the central government, which argued that Article 370 had international and cross-border implications. The Centre had in 2019 argued that it was a sensitive matter and whatever happens in the country over it would be raked up at the United Nations. While issuing notices, the court referred the matter to a five-judge constitution bench.