The Supreme Court noted that the power to create a Union Territory out of a State belongs to the Parliament while upholding the delimitation process in Jammu and Kashmir. 

Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka were on a panel that noted that Article 3 of the Constitution states that Parliament may create new States and change the locations, boundaries, and names of existing States through legislation. According to Article 3's explanation I, "Union Territory" is a part of a "State."

"Thus, Explanation I makes it amply clear that the power of Parliament under Clause (a) of Article 3, to make a law to form a new State or to alter a boundary of a State includes a power to make a law to form a new Union Territory", the decision was made. According to Explanation II to Article 3, the authority granted to Parliament by clause (a) includes the authority to combine a portion of one State or Union territory with another State or Union territory to create a new State or Union territory. 

The court was making a ruling regarding a petition that questioned the legality of the Union's decision to establish a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the Delimitation Act, 2002's provisions, as well as the Commission's delimitation work.

Jammu and Kashmir's unique status under Article 370 was revoked in August 2019. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which called for the division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, went into effect on October 31, 2019. Ladakh became a new Union Territory as well. 

The petitioners' argument was mostly supported by Article 170 (3) of the Indian Constitution, which stops delimitation efforts until the first census after 2026. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that Article 170(3) does not apply to a Union Territory, which J&K is at the moment. No such freezing period is mentioned in the aforementioned regulation.

The ruling has made it clear that because a Constitution Bench is now considering the question of Article 370, the petition's denial should not be interpreted as endorsing the conclusions made on that subject.

Case Title: Haji Adbul Gani Khan And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 237 of 2022