The Supreme Court has concluded its hearings in the landmark case challenging the Union Government's 2019 decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir's (J&K) special status under Article 370 of the Constitution. This high-profile case has captured significant public attention, with senior legal experts presenting compelling arguments before the bench.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal shed light on J&K's unique journey toward integration into India, emphasizing the importance of mutual agreement in its revocation. He posed a thought-provoking question: why does Article 370 allow unilateral revocation, while other articles require consultation and agreement? Sibal also stressed the protective role of the non-obstante clause within Chapter XXI of the Constitution, which contains temporary provisions.

In his argument, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium contended that although Article 370 was initially considered temporary, it has evolved to acknowledge J&K's Constitution and the political role of its people. He challenged the notion of unchecked presidential authority, highlighting that J&K's Constitution established lasting institutions.

Senior Advocate Zaffar Shah delved into the historical context of J&K's integration, asserting that residual sovereignty had shifted to the people, leading to the creation of their Constitution. He advocated for self-governance as a means to foster unity, emphasizing the importance of earning people's loyalty rather than imposing control.

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan questioned the supposed temporariness of Article 370, drawing attention to the dual powers vested in the Constituent Assembly of J&K. He emphasized the significance of compromises in the constitution-making process, dispelling claims that J&K's Constitution overlooked socialism and secularism.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave concluded the petitioner's arguments, asserting that the extensive exercise of powers under Article 370 over seven decades contradicted its alleged temporary status. He questioned the sudden abrogation, attributing it to political commitments. Dave argued that the revocation posed a threat to democratic values, federalism, and the rule of law.

As the Supreme Court reserves its judgment, the nation eagerly awaits a pivotal decision concerning the future of Article 370 and its implications for Jammu and Kashmir. This case carries profound consequences for constitutional principles, governance, and the intricate relationship between the central government and the states.