Article 370 was a temporary provision, the Supreme Court while pronouncing the Abrogation of Article 370 verdict

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in his judgment on the abrogation of Article 370 case, stated that Article 370 was a temporary provision. While pronouncing his judgment, CJI said, “The J&K constituent assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the Constitution. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President.” The decision was given by a Constitution bench and 3 judgments were delivered one authored by CJI including the opinion of Justice Kant and Justice Gavai. The bench said, “When the constituent assembly ceased to exist, the special condition for which 370 was introduced ceased to exist but the situation in the state remained and thus the article continued.” 

While delivering the judgment, the top court answered various issues such as the Nature of the provisions of Article 370, the applicability of the entire Indian Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1), the constitutional validity of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 bifurcating the State in two Union territories, and many more. The arguments were heard earlier this year in August and the SC bench reserved the judgment in September. 

In this case, Attorney General of India R Venkataramani, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Vikramjeet, and Advocate Kanu Aggarwal appeared for the Union of India. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, SA Prashanto Chandra Sen, SA Sanjay Parikh, SA Nitya Ramakrishnan, SA Menaka Guruswamy, SA Kapil Sibal, SA Zaffar Shah, SA Gopal Subramanium, SA Rajeev Dhavan, SA Chander Uday Singh, SA Dushyant Dave, SA Dinesh Dwivedi, SA Shekhar Naphade, and Advocate Warisha Farasat appeared for petitioners. SA V Giri, SA Guru Krishnakumar, SA Harish Salve, SA Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate VK Biju, Advocate Charu Mathur, and Advocate Archana Pathak Dave appeared as the intervenors backing the Union.