Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in a long-standing legal battle challenging the Union Government's 2019 decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 of the Constitution. This case also questions the validity of the J&K Reorganization Act, which resulted in the division of the region into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

This landmark case, which commenced on August 2, 2023, involved extensive debates and discussions spanning sixteen days. Remarkably, the case had remained dormant for over three years, with its last hearing taking place in March 2020.

The core argument put forth by the petitioners revolved around the unique nature of J&K's relationship with India, contending that it was deeply ingrained in India's constitutional framework. They emphasized that the Maharaja of J&K had not surrendered its internal sovereignty to the Dominion of India. While matters of foreign affairs, communication, and defense fell under the Union's jurisdiction through the Instrument of Accession (IoA), J&K retained the authority to legislate on other issues.

The petitioners asserted that Article 370 had essentially become a permanent provision after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957. They argued that, within the existing constitutional framework, the Indian parliament could not function as a Constituent Assembly. The petitioners also criticized the misuse of Article 356, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in a State, claiming that it was intended to restore, not dismantle, state governance.

In addition, the petitioners challenged the modification of Article 370 through Article 367 as unauthorized and questioned the unprecedented transformation of an entire state into a Union Territory using Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. They underscored the adverse consequences of this transformation on the constitutional structure.

On the contrary, the Union Government and other respondents contended that the abrogation of Article 370 resolved the 'psychological duality' among the people of J&K. They argued that discrimination against the residents of J&K existed before the abrogation due to the incomplete application of the Indian constitution to the region. They maintained that the framers of the Constitution consistently viewed Article 370 as a 'temporary' provision. Respondents also challenged the concept of an exclusive special status for J&K, highlighting the historical context of princely states drafting their own constitutions.

Furthermore, the respondents defended the reorganization of J&K into a Union Territory as a temporary measure owing to its sensitive border location, with an assurance that statehood would eventually be restored. They argued that, without modifying Article 367, Article 370 would have become a permanent feature, as only the Constituent Assembly could amend it. The respondents also asserted that the J&K Constitution was subservient to the Indian Constitution and did not possess original constituent powers."