The Supreme Court of India will deliver its verdict in the Article 370 abrogation case today.A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant will deliver its verdict in a batch of petitions challenging the Central government's 2019 move to revoke Article 370 which conferred special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.The Court had the matter for 16 days before reserving its verdict on September 5.Over 20 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Central government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which resulted in the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. The erstwhile State was subsequently bifurcated into two Union Territories.When the matters were listed in March 2020, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had decided not to refer the batch of petitions to a seven-judge Constitution Bench, despite some petitioners seeking such a reference.On August 2, the top court began final hearing in the matter. It heard the case for 16 days before reserving its judgment.The petitioners, represented by a battery of senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that the Union of India used brute majority in Parliament to issue a series of executive orders through the President to divide a full-fledged State into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.The petitioners termed it an attack on federalism and a fraud on the Constitution..What did the Central government argue in the case?1. Jammu and Kashmir did not have any special status from the beginning and the draft accession agreement was the same for all princely States;2. 'Psychological duality' prevailing in the region ended with the abrogation of Article 370 and resulted in a large number of people getting fundamental rights;3. Article 370 was not a kind of privilege that could not have been taken away and it was a self-extinguishing legislation. This is because whenever a word in Article 370 became otiose, it was replaced. like Sadr-e -Riyasat was replaced by Governor;4. Whenever there is President's rule, the Parliament exercises the role of the State legislature and this was the same for all the States;5. Abrogation was justified since it was done to counter the consistent, repeated situation the nation had been facing for decades especially since one part of the territory is occupied by Pakistan. The decision to abrogate was not taken as a knee-jerk decision and these are policy considerations;6. Jammu and Kashmir is a Union Territory only as a temporary measure, and its Statehood would be restored, although Ladakh would remain a Union Territory. Full statehood will be restored over a period of time and no fixed timeline can be given now;7. The argument that during President's Rule, you could not have taken an irreversible decision without resorting to Article 368 is not correct. If Article 370 was to enable complete national integration of Jammu and Kashmir, then that purpose was over;8. Federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but federal diversity can still exist within federalism and the Indian federation has no space for Article 370. Making Article 370(1) permanent will make an unconstitutional provision remain in the Constitution;9. Even when the Constituent Assembly was being dissolved, the members could not have chosen to keep Article 370 or do away with it on their own since it is the President who would take the final call and the President could make his own choice;10. Constitutional amendments are tested with reference to basic structure doctrine. The law cannot be held to be violative of basic structure. It is only constitutional amendments. When a law is made to protect civil liberties, it is aligned with Article 21 and it is aligned with basic structure;11. The ultimate legal sovereignty rested with the Union government. Article 370 could have been got rid of by means of its proviso (3). Article 370 has a flavor of constituent, legislative and executive power. When plenary power is entrusted to the President, it should not be read with any kind of restrictions. Such extraordinary power need not be read with any kind of restrictions..Five main arguments by the petitioners against the abrogation of Article 3701. Article 370 became permanent after the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist. As per clause 3 of Article 370, the said Article can be repealed only on the recommendation of the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. This body was dissolved in 1957 and Article 370 became permanent due to the same.2. Article 370 was repealed in a roundabout way by first amending Article 368 and substituting the words ‘Constituent Assembly’ of Jammu and Kashmir with the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. This was done since the Constituent Assembly which was empowered to do so had dissolved in 1957. This substitution is a colourable exercise of power. Even otherwise, the Legislative Assembly was not in session during the abrogation of Article 370 since Jammu and Kashmir was under the President’s rule. Hence, the Presidential order of August 7 abrogating Article 370 was done on the recommendation of the Parliament and not the legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. The powers of the legislative assembly of a State cannot be taken over by the Central government or Parliament;3. When a proclamation had been issued by the President suspending the erstwhile State Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, there are implied restrictions on exercising Article 370(3), which provides for the repeal of Article 370. A Legislative Assembly cannot be converted into a Constituent Assembly because the intent of the Legislature can be partisan, but that is not the case for the Constituent Assembly;4. Central government's powers under Article 3 (on formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States) cannot be used to change a State into a Union Territory as was done in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. Any change to the boundaries of a State requires the Constitution to take the views of the State. The existence of States is a part of the basic structure and Jammu and Kashmir cannot be an exception to this.5. If the Government of India wanted to 'completely integrate' Jammu and Kashmir into India, then a merger agreement should have been executed as it happened with other princely States. There was no such merger agreement and Jammu and Kashmir got constitutional autonomy. The Muslim majority population of Jammu and Kashmir had chosen to be with India under the Constitutional promise of Article 370.Live updates from the judgment pronouncement here. .[Watch the pronouncement of the verdict LIVE].The judgment pronouncement is slated to begin after 10:30 AM..Security measures in Kashmir tightened ahead of the pronouncement of judgment by the Supreme Court in the Article 370 case. .Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi among others in the front row of Court 1 where the judgment would be pronounced. .The five-judge Constitution bench assembles. The bench consists of 5 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court..CJI: There are 3 judgments, one by the CJI for himself, Justices Gavai and Surya Kant. There is a concurring opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. Justice Sanjiv Khanna has concurred with both the judges. .CJI: The reference before the Constitution bench raises the following questions:a) Whether the provisions of Article 370 were temporary in nature or whether they acquired the status of permanence in the Constitution?b) Whether the amendment to Article 367 and exercise of the power under Article 370 (1) (d) to substitute the reference to the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in Article 370 (3) by the words "Legislative Assembly of the State" is constitutionally valid?c) Whether the entire the entire Constitution of India could have been applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in exercise under Article 370 (1)(d)d) Whether the abrogation of Article 370 by the President in the exercise of the power under Article 370 (3) is constitutionally invalid in the absence of a recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mandated by the proviso to clause (3)?e) Whether the proclamation of the Governor dated 20 June, 2018 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the subsequent exercise of power on 21 November 2018 under Section 53 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution to dissolve the Legislative Assembly are constitutionally valid?f) Whether the proclamation issued by the President under Article 356 of the Constitution on 19 December 2018 and the subsequent extensions are constitutionally valid?g) Whether the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, by which the State of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two Union Territories is constitutionally valid...?.CJI: This court need not adjudicate on validity of proclamations because main challenge was to abrogation and if it can be done during President rule and even if its held proclamation could not be done, no material to say the President rule cannot be invoked. These challenges form the fulcrum of challenges by petitioners..CJI: There are limitations on power of the Union in States when a proclamation of Presidential rule is in force. SR bommai judges adopted a different approach to test validity of power exercised by the President... This bench is bound by the SR Bommai case judgment (a 9-judge bench decision) since we are in 5 judges combination... We hold that limitations are there when proclamation is made under Article 356... Article 356(1) states that power in clauses a, b, c are not automatically invoked. Article 356(1) does not have an all or none formula.. Centre can exercise some and State can function on some areas.. It says Union power is dependent on the circumstances which led to the proclamation..CJI: Principle underlined under Article 356(1) must be such that action of President must be necessary and desirable to give effect to the object of the proclamation. Thus, the principle which runs through Article 356(1)(c) says exercise of power must have a reasonable nexus with the object of the proclamation ... When a proclamation under Article 356 is in force, there are innumerable decisions taken by the Union government on behalf of the State government for the purpose of day to day administration. Every decision and action taken by the Union executive on behalf of the State is not subject to challenge. Opening up challenge to every decision would lead to chaos and uncertainty. It would put administration at a standstill.CJI: The exercise of the President's power for everyday running of business cannot be subject to regular judicial review. The power of the Legislature of the State under 357 to repeal or amend the law must be read in the context of 42nd amendment act.. The repealing statute would make subsistence for the legislation. An ordinance, which is in nature of law, has limited life..CJI: Purpose of Article 357 is that Parliament or the President are not impeded by the absence of competence.. Article 357 does not contain non-obstante provision... To read the way petitioners point would be (in a way that) the Constitution does not provide. .CJI: Whether Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of internal sovereignty after it acceded to India? We hold that it does not hold any internal sovereignty after accession to Union of India..We hold that Jammu and Kashmir does not hold any internal sovereignty after accession to Union of India.Supreme Court.CJI: By issuance of proclamation, para 8 of instrument of accession ceases to exist. Neither constitutional text states that Jammu and Kashmir had any internal sovereignty. The proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh in 1949 and constitution thereafter cements it. That the State of Jammu and Kashmir became integral part of India is evident from Article 1 of the Constitution of India. .CJI: All States in the country have legislative and executive powers.. Articles 371 (a) to (j) are examples of special arrangements of different States and is an example of asymmetric federalism. Thus Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty and (is) like all States and Union Territories of India..CJI: Now challenge to Constitutional Order 273. To answer this, we have to decide if 370 is a temporary provision. We hold that Article 370 is a temporary provision. It was introduced to serve transitional purposes, to provide for an interim arrangement until the Constituent Assembly of the State was formed and could take a decision on the legislative competence of the Union on matters other than the one stipulated in the instrument of accession and to ratify the Constitution. Second, it was for a temporary purpose, an interim arrangement, in view of the special circumstances because of the war conditions in the State. Textual reading also shows it is a temporary provision. For this purpose, we have referred to the placement in Part 21 of the Constitution which deals with temporary and transitional provisions. .We have held that Article 370 is a temporary provision.Supreme Court.CJI: Now effect of dissolution of Constituent Assembly. We hold that the effect of the Presidential Power to issue a notification abrogating Article 370 subsists. A ruler of each Indian state had to issue a proclamation adopting the Constitution of India..We hold that the effect of the Presidential Power to issue a notification abrogating Article 370 subsists.Supreme Court.CJI: Recommendation of the Constituent Assembly, to begin with, was not binding on the President ... Constituent Assembly was never intended to be a permanent body but a body with a specific remit and purpose. The power conferred by the proviso to Article 370 (3) was, hence, something which was to operate in a period of transition ... When the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist, the special condition for which Article 370 was introduced ceased to exist but the situation in the State remained and thus the Article remained..Recommendation of the Constituent Assembly, to begin with, was not binding on the President. Constituent Assembly was never intended to be permanent body.Supreme Court.CJI: Article 370(3) was introduced for constitutional integration and not for constitutional disintegration. Holding that 370(3) cannot be used after Constituent Assembly was dissolved cannot be accepted since it was freeze the provision for constitutional integration. Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the President of India. The decision is however not beyond of judicial review and slew of Constitutional Orders under Article 370(1)(d) shows that the Union and the State through a collaborative process had applied the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This shows the gradual process of integration was ongoing and thus we do not find use of Presidential power was malafide. Thus we hold the Presidential power to issue the notification was valid..We hold the Presidential power to issue the notification was valid.Supreme Court on Constitutional Order 273 abrogating Article 370.CJI: We have held all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to Jammu and Kashmir and non-application of mind cannot be claimed (with reference to issuance of CO 272 by the President).CJI: We hold that the President seeking concurrence of the Union and not the State is not invalid. Thus all provisions of the Constitution can be applied to the Jammu and Kashmir. Consultation between State would be needed only when amendments are needed in the State constitution to ensure that constitution of the State is not inconsistent ... Principle of consultation and collaboration was not needed here. Mala fide can only be there when there is an intention to deceive. .CJI: On the validity of the exercise of power by the Parliament: Could the Parliament have substituted the views of the State Legislature? The views of State Legislature was not binding on Parliament..CJI: We have held that the modification by CO 272 to 367 as it applies to Jammu and Kashmir has the effect of amending Article 370 and is thus ultra vires Article 370 (1)(d) ... While the interpretation clause, namely, Article 367 can be used to define or give meaning to particular terms, it cannot be deployed to amend a provision by bypassing the specific procedure laid down for its amendment. This would defeat the purpose of having a procedure for making an amendment to the Constitution of India.. The consequence of permitting an amendment through a circuitous manner would be disastrous. Many provisions of the Constitution would be susceptible to amendments..CO 272 is ultra vires Article 370 (1)(d)Supreme Court.CJI: Now on Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act validity ... Solicitor General submits that Statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir.. In view of this submission, we do not find it necessary to determine whether the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 was invalid. The status of Ladakh as Union Territory is upheld because Article 3A read with explanation permits forming a Union Territory... This court is alive to security concerns in the territory. Direct elections to the Legislative Assemblies, which is one of the paramount features of representative democracy in India, cannot be put on hold till Statehood is restored. We direct that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the Legislative Assemblies of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act by 30 September, 2024. Restoration of Statehood shall take place at the earliest, and as soon as possible. .Steps shall be taken so that elections are held in Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024. Statehood shall be restored as soon as possible.Supreme Court.CJI: The question of whether Parliament can extinguish the character of Statehood by converting a State into one or more Union Territories by exercising power under Article 3 is left open. In an appropriate case, this Court must construe the scope of Article 3 in light of the necessary effect of converting a State into Union Territories, which is that the autonomy would be diminished, the historical context for the creation of federating units, and its impact on the principles of federalism and representative democracy. .The question of whether Parliament can extinguish the character of Statehood by converting a State into one or more Union Territories is left open.Supreme Court.Chief Justice Chandrachud sums up the conclusions:1. Jammu and Kashmir does not retain any element of sovereignty after instrument of accession was signed;2. No internal sovereignty for Jammu and Kashmir;3. Challenge to the proclamation of Presidential rule does not merit adjudication because the principal challenge is to the actions taken after the proclamation was issued;4. Exercise of power of President (to proclaim President's rule) must have a reasonable nexus with the object of presidential rule;5. Power of Parliament to legislate for State cannot exclude law making power;6. Article 370 was a temporary provision;7. When Constituent Assembly was dissolved, only the transitory power of the Assembly ceased to exist and there was no restriction on Presidential order;8. Para 2 of CO 272 by which Article 370 was amended by amending article 367 was ultra vires Article 370 (1)(d) as interpretation clause cannot be used to bypass the procedure laid down for amendment;9. President use of power to issue CO 272 was not mala fide and no concurrence was needed with State to apply all the provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir;10. Para 2 of CO 272 issued by President in exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d) applying all provisions of Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir was valid. Such an exercise of power is not mala fide merely because all the provisions of the Constitution were applied together, without following a piece meal approach;11. The continuous exercise of power by the President shows the gradual process of integration was ongoing. Thus CO 273 is valid;12. Constitution of India is a complete code for constitutional governance. Following the application of the Constitution of India in its entirety to Jammu and Kashmir by CO 273, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is inoperative and is declared to have become redundant;13. Presidential use of power not mala fide;14. Solicitor General made statement that Statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir, except for the carving out of Union of Territory is Ladakh. We uphold the decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh in view of Article 3A read with explanation 1. We direct Election Commission of India to conduct elections to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assemblies under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act and Statehood should be restored at the earliest and as soon as possible. .Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul reads his concurring opinion..Justice Kaul: Article 370 was a temporary provision and the means was to derecognize internal sovereignty. Purpose of the Constituent Assembly was to bring the State at par with other States in India and help in gradual integration. Thus constitutionality in 370(3) for concurrence with State cannot make the larger purpose of Article as redundant. When the Constituent Assembly cease to exist only its recommendatory powers cease to exists. Using the amendment of Article 367 as a backdoor was incorrect. Article 356 can be imposed ... and it does not bar the Union or President to exercise non-legislative functions on the State Legislature..Justice Kaul: Not possible to ascertain the views of State legislature... since State Assembly was not in session..Justice Kaul (reading the epilogue to his opinion): It is a bit sentimental as well. Insurgencies led to the migration of one part of the population and the situation was such that army had to be called and the nation faced dangers. Men, women and children of the State has paid a heavy price. During my travels home over the years, I have (seen) the consequences of the inter-generational trauma on the already fractured society. I cannot help but feel anguished by what the people of region have experienced. In order to move forward, the wound needs healing. .Justice Sanjiv Khanna: We have only two judgments. Amending Article 367 was bad in law (CO 272) but the same objective could be achieved by 370(3) and thus the CO 273 is held to be valid.