Today, the Supreme Court commenced the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which revoked the special status of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, presided over the case.

In today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal presented his arguments, contending that Article 370 was no longer a 'temporary provision,' asserting that it had assumed permanence post the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of J&K. 

The bench inquired why Article 370 was initially placed under Part XXI of the Constitution as a temporary provision. Sibal responded that the Constitution makers anticipated the formation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K, which would have the authority to decide the future course of Article 370. Thus, with the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, whose recommendation was necessary to abrogate Article 370, the provision could not be revoked.

Sibal emphasized the significance of the case and the unique relationship between J&K and India, questioning whether such a relationship could be abruptly discarded. While he acknowledged the integration of J&K into India, he highlighted that the Constitution envisaged a special relationship with the region. He pointed out that over time, several orders were issued that incorporated most powers in J&K in tandem with the Indian Constitution, making all Indian laws applicable to the state.

Regarding the abrogation of Article 370, Sibal argued that the Indian Parliament cannot convert itself into the Constituent Assembly of J&K, which was essential for the process. He stated that a constituent assembly is a political body meant to draft a constitution, and the current Indian parliament, bound by constitutional provisions, cannot assume that role.

Moving on to the historical context, Sibal described the circumstances leading to the Maharaja of J&K's decision to sign the Instrument of Accession in October 1947. He emphasized that the IoA granted J&K residuary powers, setting it apart from other Indian states and creating a "truly federal marriage."

On the issue of Article 370's temporary nature, Sibal explained that the provision was considered temporary only because the Constituent Assembly of J&K did not exist when the Indian Constitution came into force. However, once the Constituent Assembly was established, created its own Constitution, and ceased to exist after 1951-1957, Article 370 became permanent due to the proviso to Article 370(3), which required the Assembly's recommendation for abrogation.

The bench raised questions about the continuity of Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly's term and the inclusion of Article 370 under the temporary and transitory provisions of the Constitution. Sibal maintained that the temporary nature was tied to the existence of the Constituent Assembly.

The arguments also touched upon the issue of residuary powers, which Sibal contended belonged to the State government of J&K as per the IoA.

Furthermore, Sibal highlighted the unprecedented nature of converting an entire state into a Union Territory, as seen in the case of J&K. He raised concerns about the absence of state elections following the bifurcation.

The bench concluded the hearing for the day, leaving the matter open for further deliberation.