SC verdict on abrogation of Article 370 Explained Highlights: Everything you need to know about the landmark judgment

The Congress party initially strongly opposed the scrapping of Article 370. It had joined the Gupkar Alliance, a grouping of J&K's political parties that championed the autonomy of the erstwhile state, in calling for its restoration. But later, it distanced itself from Gupkar and nuanced its position. 

While the party has remained ambivalent over the question of restoration of Article 370, it has been pressing for early polls in J&K. What explains this shift? Read here.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday gave a sharp retort to Home Minister Amit Shah for his comments in the Rajya Sabha targetting Jawaharlal Nehru on the Kashmir issue and said that the BJP leader does not know history and “keeps rewriting” it.

“Pandit Nehru dedicated his life to this country. He was in jail for years, Amit Shah ji does not know history. I don’t expect that he would know history as he keeps rewriting history,” said Gandhi. Read more here about what Shah said earlier. 

The central government changed the provisions defining permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir after the constitutional changes of August 5, 2019.

Who were the ‘permanent residents’ of the state before that? 

Commenting on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s unanimous verdict upholding the BJP-led Centre’s August 2019 move to scrap Article 370, the Hyderabad-based Siasat, in its editorial on December 12, wrote that the judgment was on expected lines. “Article 370 is history… Its revocation is now immutable. The SC verdict is the last word on the issue.”

Read more on what the newspaper said here.

People from almost all professional and social strata in Jammu — traders, displaced persons from Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK), refugees, backward classes, Gujjars and Bakerwals — did not oppose the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019.

But now, some seem to be discontented about the Centre’s move. For instance, backing the BJP’s promise of “achhe din (good days)”, All India Confederation of SC/ST/OBC Organisations’ J&K president R K Kalsotra supported the Centre’s move. But, with Article 370 now gone, members of the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, who owned or possessed small pieces of land for agriculture, have received eviction notices from the administration. Read our report here.

PDP chief and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti told The Indian Express that SC judgment on Article 370 is a 'huge let-down... (which) has given a free licence to BJP to play with the Constitution'.

In an interview yesterday, Mufti was asked, “The apex court has set a timeframe for the J&K elections but no timeframe for restoration of its statehood. Are you hopeful that J&K will get the statehood any time soon?”

She responded: “Everyone knows the answer. I don’t think so. The BJP says a lot of things but does only what they have to do. It could be just another jumla as they call it… like they said about depositing Rs 15 lakhs in your account or creating two crore jobs. They are all jumlas.”

In ruling that Parliament can, effectively, unilaterally change the status of a state to a Union Territory if the state is under President’s rule, the Supreme Court Monday, in upholding the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, seemed to tilt the federal balance in favour of the Union. Here's how. 

A fiery debate erupted in the Rajya Sabha on December 11 as Home Minister Amit Shah and Congress leader Digvijay Singh engaged in a confrontational discourse over the Kashmir issue and the legacy of former PM Jawaharlal Nehru.

The discussion unfolded during deliberations on two Bills related to J&K, introduced by Shah, while Singh defended Nehru against Shah’s claims. Watch here: 

While reading out his opinion on the abrogation of Article 370 yesterday, CJI Chandrachud said that Jammu and Kashmir held no internal sovereignty after it acceded to India in 1947.

BJP leaders have often blamed Jawaharlal Nehru when it comes to Kashmir and how it became a part of India. In this video, we look at Nehru’s role in the accession of Kashmir, his close relationship with Kashmir and his ties with J&K Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah.

Asserting that the Supreme Court verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370 proved the position of the government to be correct, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in the Rajya Sabha Monday that the government and the BJP would take full responsibility for the decision in times to come.

Shah said that there were nearly 41,000 families who came from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) during the three wars with Pakistan in 1948, 1965 and 1971. They will now have 24 seats reserved in the Assembly, he added. “We believe PoK is ours and nobody can take it from us,” Shah said amid cheers from the treasury benches.

Kashmir was one of the issues on which the founder president of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh — the predecessor and first avatar of the BJP — Syama Prasad Mookerjee, walked out of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. How have the RSS and the BJS viewed the issue in the past? Click here to read the history.

After the SC's judgment on Article 370, Home Minister Amit Shah said in the Rajya Sabha yesterday that India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a mistake by taking the Kashmir issue to the United Nations in 1948. Shah said that without him this Bill would not be needed. He said that there were problems in Hyderabad, Junagarh, Lakshadweep and Jodhpur, but Nehru did not go there, while Sardar Patel did. Shah said that the only place Nehru went to, he left the task half done.

J&K National Conference chief Farooq Abdullah said on Tuesday, "I don't know why they (BJP) have so much venom against (Pandit Jawaharlal) Nehru. Nehru is not the one responsible. When this article (370) was brought, Sardar Patel was here, and Pandit Nehru was in America...We want elections to take place in Kashmir, but the Supreme Court gave them time till September..."

In an opinion article for The Indian Express, the former Finance Minister of J&K Haseeb Drabu writes of yesterday's judgment:

"By not overreaching in the matter, the judgment has not been informed even by the fact that underlying the constitutional provision of Article 370 was a social contract, with people as well as with states as units of a constitutional republic. Instead, the case was rather meekly argued, intently heard, and predictably disposed of." Read his full article here.

Upholding the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court on Monday relied heavily on its landmark 1994 judgement in SR Bommai v Union of India.

In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 356 of the Constitution, which contains provisions for the imposition of President’s rule in a state. What is this case’s relevance to the SC’s latest verdict on Article 370? We explain here.

Yesterday, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud upheld the constitutional validity of the two Presidential Orders CO (The Constitution (Application To Jammu and Kashmir) Order) 272 and 273 of August 5 and 6, 2019 respectively, by which the entire Constitution of India was made applicable to J&K, and all provisions of Article 370 were declared inoperative.

August 5, 2019, is etched in the hearts and minds of every Indian. Parliament passed the historic decision to abrogate Article 370. Since then, much has changed in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. The judicial verdict came in December 2023 but seeing the wave of development across Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, the people’s court has given a resounding thumbs up to Parliament’s decision of abolishing Articles 370 and 35(A) for four years now. Read more

The Supreme Court in a 5-0 unanimous ruling upheld the Centre’s abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution on Monday.

Read this explainer to understand the court's view on 4 key issues: sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir, whether Art 370 is temporary or permanent, legality of the abrogation of Article 370, and the action that was taken under President’s rule.

From delimination of constituencies to special summary revision of the electoral roll and “rearranging” polling stations, the preparations for holding elections in Jammu and Kashmir have been “complete” since the beginning of this year.

Stating this at a press conference on January 19, Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar had said: “The process of delimitation is complete. The process of SSR (special summary revision) is complete. The process of identifying, fixing and rearranging polling stations after delimitation is also complete. Appointment of ROs (Returning Officers) for those constituencies wherever the changes have taken place, appointment of AEROs (assistant electoral registration officers), and the entire process is complete. So, we are aware that once the process is complete, elections are due and they must be held.”

He had said the EC would take into account the weather, security concerns and other elections before deciding the dates. Read Full Report

In ruling that Parliament can, effectively, unilaterally change the status of a state to a Union Territory if the state is under President’s rule, the Supreme Court Monday, in upholding the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, seemed to tilt the federal balance in favour of the Union.

Article 3 of the Constitution, that deals with formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states, requires the President to necessarily refer such a law to the state legislature concerned for “expressing its views.”

In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the President referred the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to Parliament for its views since the state was under President’s rule.

Under the President’s rule, Parliament exercised the “powers of the Legislature.” Read Full Report

Drabu writes: 'The expectation of even die-hard idealists was not from the judgment per se but the obiter dicta: The Supreme Court was expected to take a view on restoration of statehood, or perhaps a small rap on the knuckles of the Union government for constitutional infirmities. That, too, just to put it on record for posterity.' Read the full opinion 

Hours after the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, Union Home Minister Amit Shah Monday said it had been a catalyst for separatism.

Speaking in the Rajya Sabha after the discussion on the Jammu-Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and Jammu-Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Shah said, “Article 370 in J-K gave rise to separatism which in turn promoted terrorism.” Read the full story here 

Karan Singh, the son of Maharaja Hari Singh, now 92, expresses his thoughts about the judgment, Justice S K Kaul’s suggestion of a truth and reconciliation committee to look into alleged human rights violations by both state and non-state actors in J&K, and if this will signal an end to separatist politics. Read the full interview here 

MN Sabharwal and Manish Sabharwal write: Both Article 370 and Article 35A were unarguably temporary. The Supreme Court judgment upholding their abrogation along with India’s new terrorism playbook and Pakistan’s weaknesses improve the prospects of peace and prosperity in J&K. Read the full article here.  

PB Mehta writes: Was the Modi government’s move another chapter in the betrayal of Jammu and Kashmir on which the SC has now put its seal of approval? Does the SC’s position establish potentially dangerous precedents for the rest of federalism as well as faith in its authority? Or, will this be the final and full integration of the state into India’s constitutional scheme, an improvement on the half measures that characterised the situation before the abrogation of 370? Read the full piece here 

In his judgment, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud recalled that in November 1949, Yuvraj Karan Singh, heir to the throne of Jammu and Kashmir, had issued a proclamation that reflected the “full and final surrender of [J&K's] sovereignty... to India.”

What was this proclamation, and why did Karan Singh issue it? On Monday, Singh, 92, spoke to The Indian Express about his decision to do so.

Following the Supreme Court's upholding the abrogation of Article 370, many invoked Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-53), an ardent opponent of Kashmir’s ‘special status’ in the Indian Union. Dr S P Mookerjee was an academic, barrister, and politician, and the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, precursor to the BJP.

In 1952, almost five years after India’s independence, Sheikh Abdullah, J&K’s prime minister, signed the Delhi Agreement that defined the contours of J&K’s autonomy. Kashmir was allowed to fly its own flag alongside the tricolour, its land was secured against “outsiders”, and the Centre was forbidden from sending in armed forces without the state’s permission.

It is at this juncture that Dr Mookerjee famously said, “Nahin chalenge ek desh mein do vidhan, do pradhan aur do nishan (You cannot have two constitutions, do prime ministers, and two flags in one country).” Read more on his views here.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah recently said in Lok Sabha that Article 370 was the foundation of secessionist sentiment in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, and suggested that its abolition had cleared the way for end of terrorism in the Valley.

According to data available with MHA till 2021, while in Jan-July 2019, 618 incidents of stone pelting were recorded in the Valley, it fell to 222 for the same period in 2020 and just 76 in 2021.

But there are still concerns. a spate of killings of civilians, particularly of Kashmiri Hindus and non-Kashmiri residents of the Valley, has exposed the fragile nature of Kashmir’s security scenario. More than 50% of all civilians killed in the Valley since August 5, 2019 have been killed in the past eight months. Read more on the changing security scenario in the region here. 

To recall, Article 370 was included in the Indian Constitution on October 17, 1949.

Constitutional law expert Faizan Mustafa wrote in The Indian Express earlier, "It exempted J&K from the Indian Constitution (except Article 1 and Article 370 itself) and permits the state to draft its own Constitution...  For extending a central law on subjects included in the Instrument of Accession (IoA), mere “consultation” with the state government is needed. But for extending it to other matters, “concurrence” of the state government is mandatory. The IoA came into play when the Indian Independence Act, 1947 divided British India into India and Pakistan.”

You can find more such articles on the basics of the legal challenge to Article 370 in our explainer here.

Last week, Union Home Minister Amit Shah again attacked India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, on the Kashmir issue, saying in Parliament, “I say this with full responsibility that Kashmir suffered due to two blunders by Nehru. First, the ceasefire (with Pakistan) was announced when our forces were winning…before winning the whole of Kashmir. The second blunder was to take the Kashmir issue to the United Nations.”

How does the story of Kashmir's accession compare with that of some other states? And why did India choose to go to the UN on the matter instead of defeating Pakistan in battle? We recalled the history, in this explainer. 

In the 16-day hearing on the matter whose verdict came out today, the Supreme Court heard arguments that the constitutional promise in Article 370 is premised on three basic guarantees — asymmetric federalism, autonomy, and consent of the people of J&K, represented through its legislature.

Several states have different constitutional guarantees. These are codified in Articles 371, 371A- I for states including Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and those in the North East. The petitioners argue that this asymmetrical federalism cannot be termed “special status”, which needs to be removed to bring J&K “on par” with the rest of India.

In ruling on these issues, the Supreme Court has also defined how far Parliament can stretch the original limits set by the framers of the Constitution to suit its current needs. Before the judgment, we laid out what its implications could be. You can read that explainer here. 

As part of what he termed a “sentimental epilogue” at the end of his opinion, Justice Kaul said that the valley of Kashmir carries a historical burden and has a social context that cannot be segregated in light of the evolving constitutional status of the region.

“We, the people of Jammu and Kashmir, are at the heart of the debate,” Justice Kaul said, adding that Kashmiri people have carried the burden of being victims of conflict for several decades. Read some of the excerpts from his opinion here. You can also watch the video linked below:

The bench pronounced three judgments – one by the CJI for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, a concurring judgment by Justice Kaul and a third by Justice Khanna concurring with the other two rulings.

Read the conclusions of the judgement by CJI Chandrachud for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant:

*Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty

The State of Jammu and Kashmir does not retain any element of sovereignty after the execution of the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the issuance of the Proclamation dated 25 November 1949, by which the Constitution of India was adopted.

*President did not have to secure concurrence of Union or state governments

The exercise of power by the President under Article 370(1)(d) to issue CO 272 is not mala fide or malicious in its intetion. The President, in exercise of power under Article 370(3), can unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist. 

Read more here on the key points. 

The state of Jammu and Kashmir was officially bifurcated into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh on October 31, 2019. This was the date chosen after the bifurcation was announced in Parliament on August 5. Beyond the symbolic importance — October 31 is the birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel — the day marked the beginning of the functioning of the two UTs at a bureaucratic level.

What changed following this decision? What happened to the domicile and land laws governing J&K? Read our explainer for more.

Before the verdict, most of the parties in the Opposition INDIA alliance believed there was little chance of the top court reversing the revocation of Article 370. Most of them were already of the view that it was a “done deal” but hoped the court would restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and direct holding of elections.

What are the views of some key members on the political challenge in front of them? Read here. 

One of the questions considered by the court was: “Whether the Proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India and Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is constitutionally valid.” These formed the basis of the move to revoke Article 370. 

What is Article 356 of the Indian Constitution? According to its provisions, the President's rule in a state can be imposed for six months at a time for a maximum duration of three years. Every six months, Parliamentary approval to impose President's Rule will be required again.

President’s rule was in place in J&K at the time of abrogation of Article 370. In 1989, after the Centre dismissed the SR Bommai government in Karnataka, SC had said the validity of a proclamation for President’s rule can be subjected to judicial review. Read more about the Article here.

Jammu and Kashmir’s regional party leaders expressed their disappointment at the judgment. Democratic Progressive Azad Party (DPAP) president and former Chief Minister of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir Ghulam Nabi Azad said:

“The people of Jammu and Kashmir won’t be happy with the unanimous judgment. Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution represented the sentiments of our people… both have ended today. This will impact the state’s economy, our land will become expensive. Now, everyone from all over the country can come to J&K, we don’t have big industries to offer employments to everyone. Our biggest industry is tourism, which has limited jobs. There are anyway few government jobs, now everyone can apply for them, which will increase unemployment among our youth.”

Azad added, “It was a mistake to abrogate Article 370 on August 5, 2019… it was done in haste, and they should have consulted parties of Jammu and Kashmir.”

PDP president Mehbooba Mufti said that people of Jammu and Kashmir should not give up hope. “The Supreme Court has said Article 370 is temporary, which is why it has been scrapped. This isn’t our loss, it’s the loss of the idea of India,” Mufti said.

Meanwhile, Omar Abdullah, vice-president of National Conference and former chief minister of J&K, said, “Disappointed but not disheartened.” Taking to X, Abdullah said, “The struggle will continue. It took the BJP decades to reach here. We are also prepared for the long haul.”

Sajad Lone, former MLA of Jammu and Kashmir and a member of People’s Conference, said that “justice yet again eludes the people of J&K”.

“Article 370 may have been legally obliterated but will always remain a part of our political aspirations. In the case of statehood the Supreme Court sidestepped even commenting on it, thus protecting the entire country from any future misuse, by citing precedence. Yet the same misuse was subtly endorsed in J&K. Let us hope at a future date Justice wakes up from its slumber of pretence,” Lone said.

BJP leaders, such as Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, hailed the Supreme Court’s verdict on the revocation of Article 370. 

Fadnavis said, "Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. There was no question of compromising the Indian territory. On the contrary, the BJP government was committed to safeguarding the interests and aspirations of the people who have always wanted the scrapping of Article 370. In any case, it was a temporary provision."

Justice Sanjay Kaul, in his opinion, recommended the setting up of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Jammu and Kashmir, to look into alleged violations of human rights by both state and non-state actors in J&K. It should be based on a dialogue and not become a criminal court, he added.

What will the purpose of such a commission be? Which countries have had such commissions in the past? We explain here. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says today “will go down in the history of India when a himalayan constitutional blunder of the past with gigantic proportion is ultimately corrected by the Government”.

"The highest court of the country, the most powerful court in the world, has stood by the constitutional values and has secured to all residents of Jammu and Kashmir their legitimate rights which they were deprived of since independence while taking care of democratic election also," he adds in a statement. 

The CJI said today that Article 370 is a temporary provision, based on a reading of the historical context in which it was included. You can watch the rest of his statements here:

In a post on the social media platform X, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote, "The verdict today is not just a legal judgment; it is a beacon of hope, a promise of a brighter future and a testament to our collective resolve to build a stronger, more united India. #NayaJammuKashmir"

The Supreme Court answered some key questions in the government’s favour:

One, on the ‘unique’ and ‘special status’ of Jammu and Kashmir.

Two, is Article 370 a ‘temporary’ or a permanent provision of the Constitution?

Three, the questions relating to the effective abrogation of Article 370. Read how they were answered here. 

The verdict has been read out. Here are a few key quotes from the Supreme Court on the matter. 

Justice Khanna says that Article 370 is an example of asymmetric federalism and not indicative of the sovereignty of J&K. The abrogation of Article 370 does not erode federalism, he adds. 

Justice Kaul recommends setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to look into alleged violations of human rights by both state and non-state actors in J&K. It should be based on a dialogue and not become a criminal court, he adds. 

Such commissions have been set up in many countries of Latin America, Africa and elsewhere after bouts of internal strife. They are meant to probe allegations of rights abuses and help restore peace between communities through delivery of justice. 

Justice Sanjay Kaul, in his opinion, says his conclusions are almost the same as the CJI. The purpose of the J&K Constitution was to ensure everyday governance in the state and the purpose of Article 370 was to integrate the state with India.

He says that he has penned a 'sentimental' epilogue at the end of his opinion. The valley of Kashmir carries a historical burden and 'We the people of Jammu and Kashmir are at the heart of the debate,' Justice Kaul says. 'Armies are meant to fight battles against enemies... not to control law and order in the state. The entry of the army created its own ground realities in the state... men women and children have paid a heavy price,' he adds.

The CJI then speaks about the reorganisation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh – that followed the revocation of Article 370.


He says that in view of the Centre's submission that the UT status is temporary, the court doesn't find it necessary to determine if the reorganisation into UTs is valid. The reorganisation of Ladakh as UT is upheld.


Also, the SC directs that restoration of statehood to J&K shall take place at the earliest, and steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of J&K by September 30, 2024.

The CJI says that Article 370 is a temporary provision on a reading of the historical context in which it was included. For more on the notion of Article 370 as such, you can click here to read our explainer. 

It served the transitional purpose to provide for an interim arrangement, till the J&K Constituent Assembly could be formed and it could ratify the Indian Constitution. Second, it served a purpose in the war-like situation prevailing in the state, he adds.

Ahead of the Supreme Court's verdict on Article 370, the police put senior political leaders, including two former chief ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, under house arrest, sources said. Police sources said Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has also been placed under house detention. However, Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha has claimed that no one has been put under house arrest or arrested “due to political reasons in J&K.” “It is an attempt to spread rumours,” he said.

Responding to the L-G’s claim, Omar shared images of the chains around his house’s gate. “Dear Mr LG these chains that have been put on my gate have not been put by me so why are you denying what your police force has done. It’s also possible you don’t even know what your police is doing? Which one is it? Are you being dishonest or is your police acting independent of you?” he said.

Essentially, the CJI in his opinion does not agree that J&K enjoyed a unique relationship with the Indian Constitution. He says that the J&K Constitution does not indicate an element of sovereignty. "It was only to further the relationship with the Union which was already defined under Article 370 and the proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh,” he adds. 

The fact that J&K is an integral part of India is evidenced in Section 3 of the J&K Constitution itself, apart from Articles 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution says, “Indian, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”

Further, Article 3 of the J&K Constitution reads: "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India." The state's Constitution also provides that this provision cannot be amended.

The CJI says that the argument of the petitioners – that the Union cannot take irrevocable actions in case of President's rule – is not acceptable.

On the subject of J&K’s sovereignty, CJI Chandrachud reiterates that J&K did not retain any sovereignty after accession to India. Even though Maharaja Hari Singh issued a proclamation saying he would retain his sovereignty, his successor Karan Singh proclaimed that the Indian Constitution would prevail over all other laws in the state.

In essence, this has the effect of a merger like every other princely state that joined India after independence from British colonial rule.

CJI Chandrachud says that Jammu and Kashmir holds no internal sovereignty after accession to India. While there are limitations to the President’s actions after the proclamation of President’s rule, in this case, they are valid.

The President and Parliament are not impeded to take over as Governor/State Legislature after the proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356, he adds. There was no prima facie (on the face of it) case that the President's orders were mala fide (in bad faith) or extraneous exercise of power, the CJI says. 

Here are the questions as framed by the SC:

1. Whether Article 370 is temporary or has gained permanent stature in the Constitution.

2. Whether Parliament‘s move to amend Article 370 in 2019 and give the words “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” a new meaning as “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” is constitutionally valid.

3. Whether the entire Constitution of India could be made applicable to Jammu and Kashmir by using Article 370 itself.

4. Whether the Centre’s 2019 actions are permissible without a recommendation of the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.

5. Whether the imposition of the President’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir and the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir assembly subsequently is constitutionally valid.

6. Whether the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir is constitutionally valid without the consultation of the state.

7. Whether the President’s actions on behalf of the J&K legislature are constitutionally valid.

CJI DY Chandrachud begins reading out the judgment. There are three opinions – one by the CJI for himself, Justice Suryakant and Justice BR Gavai. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjeev Khanna have authored separate, concurring opinions for themselves.

Significant changes have happened after the abrogation of Article 370 in the erstwhile state: 

*Politics: Almost all major opposition leaders were either detained or had their movements curtailed after the abrogation of Article 370. With political actions by mainstream parties frozen, new outfits emerged, and several leaders changed loyalties. 

*Security: Security forces in Jammu and Kashmir have expanded the scope of anti-terror operations to include various agencies in attacking not just the militant wielding the gun but what they consider, “larger terror networks and funding structures.” Here, we explain what the data says on encounters, attacks on civilians, etc. 

*Administrative changes: All central laws became applicable in J&K, and the erstwhile state’s own constitution became defunct. Read more here. 

From delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir to voting rights to West Pakistan Refugees, a host of decisions will be impacted by the SC verdict on pleas challenging the changes made to Article 370. Here are the crucial ones.

While tabling the bill in Parliament four years ago, Home Minister Amit Shah had said, “Article 370 was a temporary provision… how long can a temporary provision be allowed to continue… After abrogation of Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir will truly become an integral part of India.”

Article 370 is in Part XXI of the Constitution, titled “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”. Article 370 is titled “Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. 

A commonly held view is that since the Article itself provides for the process through which it can be declared inoperative, it is a temporary provision. However, the petitioners argued that it is not for this reason that Article 370 is referred to as a “temporary” provision. We explain their arguments here. 

Following the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah defended his government’s decision. “I was firm that Article 370 should be removed…. after (scrapping) Article 370, terrorism in Kashmir will end and it will progress on the path of development,” he said.

What has been the BJP's stand on Article 370, and that of the RSS, through the years? Has the repeal of the Article always figured in the BJP’s election manifestos?  Read the history, here. 

The SC will deliver its verdict on the Central government's 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which accorded a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian Union. Faizan Mustafa, constitutional law expert and former Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, explained in The Indian Express in 2019:

“Included in the Constitution on October 17, 1949, Article 370 exempts J&K from the Indian Constitution (except Article 1 and Article 370 itself) and permits the state to draft its own Constitution. It restricts Parliament’s legislative powers in respect of J&K. For extending a central law on subjects included in the Instrument of Accession (IoA), mere “consultation” with the state government is needed. But for extending it to other matters, “concurrence” of the state government is mandatory. The IoA came into play when the Indian Independence Act, 1947 divided British India into India and Pakistan.”

It followed attempts to bring independent provinces under the Indian Union after British colonial rule over the subcontinent ended in 1947. Some other states (such as Mizoram, Nagaland, Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc.) also enjoy special status under Article 371, from 371A to 371I. To read about this provision in detail, see our previous explainer from Mustafa.