Several review petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court contesting its unanimous judgment on December 11, 2023, which upheld the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. The decision marked the culmination of a legal battle that saw the revocation of the special status granted to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. 

The court has been approached by several entities, including the Communist Party of India, the National Conference, the J&K People's Movement, the J&K Awami National Conference, and Advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, who is representing himself as a petitioner. 

The Supreme Court's five-judge bench had validated the Central government's 2019 move to abrogate Article 370, considering it a transitory provision. However, the bench opted not to delve into the legality of the 2019 law responsible for the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, a decision that has been a source of contention.

The judgment faced criticism from various quarters, with former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman expressing his concerns. Justice Nariman highlighted that the verdict was disconcerting, raising questions about its impact on federalism. He contended that it allowed the Union government to bypass Article 356 of the Constitution, which limits the imposition of President's Rule in a state to a maximum of one year.

Fali S. Nariman, a veteran jurist and Senior Advocate, further lamented the absence of a dissenting judgment in the case. The lack of dissenting opinions often sparks debates on the robustness of the judicial process, and in this instance, it has intensified the critique surrounding the handling of the Article 370 matter.