The Supreme Court bench has rejected the case of the petitioners, and has upheld Article 370 as a temporary provision in Jammu and Kashmir. The verdict from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud comes in response to a slew of petitions challenging the Centre's move four years ago. After a 16-day-long hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on September 5.The petitioners argued that Article 370 cannot be scrapped unilaterally by the Centre, since the powers of the Constituent Assembly were vested in the Jammu and Kashmir legislature after it was dissolved in 1957.
The central government had defended its decision to abrogate Article 370, saying there was no "constitutional fraud" in repealing the provision that accorded special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The CJI has stated that the validity of the Presidential Proclamation does not need to be adjudicated upon because the petitioners did not challenge it. Additionally, the CJI noted that in any case, the proclamation was withdrawn in October 2019.All states in India possess both legislative and executive powers. Articles 371 (a) to (j) are cited as examples of special arrangements for different states, illustrating a form of asymmetric federalism. The conclusion drawn is that Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty and is akin to all other states and Union Territories of India in this regard. Security has been tightened across Srinagar ahead of SC ruling tody. Commuters are also being frisked near Lal Chowk. The apex court took up this case for hearing after a delay of almost four years. In March 2020, when the Court last heard the matter, the question was about referring the case to a larger bench, which a five-judge bench presided by Justice N.V. Ramana refused. The case was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2019 by a three-judge bench led by former CJI Rajan Gogoi.