Factual Background:

• The abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the subsequent bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir reflects a sequence of significant political and legal actions, culminating in the historic reorganisation of the State:

1. 19 June 2018: Ms. Mehbooba Mufti, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, resigned following the withdrawal of support by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), dissolving the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP)-BJP alliance government.
2. 20 June 2018: The Governor of Jammu and Kashmir issued a Proclamation under Section 92 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, assuming the powers of the State government, with the concurrence of the President of India.
3. 21 November 2018: The Governor dissolved the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly under Section 53(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution.
4. 28 November 2018: The Governor submitted a report to the President of India, recommending the imposition of President’s Rule, as the six-month period under Section 92(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution was about to end.
5. 19 December 2018: The President issued a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, imposing President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir and assuming the powers of the State government and Legislature.
6. 28 December 2018: The Lok Sabha approved the Proclamation of President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir.
7. 3 January 2019: The Rajya Sabha approved the Proclamation of the President’s Rule, and the President delegated the Governor to exercise State functions under the supervision of the President.
8. 28 June 2019: The Lok Sabha approved the extension of the President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir.
9. 1 July 2019: The Rajya Sabha approved the extension of the President’s Rule.
10. 3 July 2019: President’s Rule was extended for six months in Jammu and Kashmir.
11. 5 August 2019: The President issued Constitutional Order (hereinafter referred to as CO) 272, applying the entire Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir, superseding prior Constitution Orders, and amending Article 367(4) of the Constitution of India, replacing “Constituent Assembly” in Article 370(3) of the Constitution of India with “Legislative Assembly.”
12. 5 August 2019: The Rajya Sabha recommended to the President that all clauses of Article 370 of the Constitution of India cease to operate. The Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019.
13. 6 August 2019: The Lok Sabha recommended that Article 370 of the Constitution of India cease to operate and that all provisions of the Constitution apply to Jammu and Kashmir without modifications. The President issued CO 273, declaring that Article 370 of the Constitution of India ceased to apply.
14. 9 August 2019: The Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification under the Reorganisation Act 2019, bringing its provisions into force from 31 October 2019.
15. 31 October 2019: Jammu and Kashmir were bifurcated into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a Legislative Assembly) and Ladakh (without a Legislative Assembly). The President’s Rule was revoked.

Legal Background/Procedural Posture:

• On 19 August 2019, the jurisdiction of the Court was invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution in Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 1.
• A batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of CO 272 and CO 273 was presented before a Constitution Bench.
• Petitioners sought a reference to a larger bench, asserting that:

1. The Constitution Bench in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270 had determined that Article 370 was temporary in nature.
2. A subsequent Constitution Bench in Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1969) 2 SCR 365 held that Article 370 is not a temporary provision, without taking into account the earlier ruling in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270.

• Petitioners based their argument on two primary points:

1. Neither the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir nor the President had declared that Article 370 ceased to be operative.
2. In accordance with the proviso to Article 368, as it applied to Jammu and Kashmir, the President was required to exercise powers under Article 370 to implement constitutional amendments made under Article 368.

• A reference to a larger Bench was sought because:

1. The decision in Mohd Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1972) 1 SCC 536 ignored the interpretation of Article 370 established in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270.
2. The judgment did not resolve whether Article 370 could continue to operate after the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was adopted.

• In Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench framed three questions for consideration:

1. When can a matter be referred to a larger Bench?
2. Is there a necessity to refer the current matter to a larger Bench given the alleged contradictory views in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270 and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1969) 2 SCR 365?
3. Is Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1969) 2 SCR 365 per incuriam (lack of due regard to the law or the facts) for failing to consider the decision in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270?

• The Constitution Bench rejected the plea for a reference to a larger Bench, providing three reasons:

1. Judgments must be interpreted in their factual and contextual framework; selective interpretation is inappropriate.
2. Article 370(2) mandated that any decisions made by the State Government, not constituted by an elected body but by the Maharaja acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers, be submitted to the Constituent Assembly for its decision.
3. The finality of such decisions was limited to those taken before the Assembly convened.

• The Constitution Bench in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270 did not address whether Article 370 continued to operate after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, as this issue was not before the Court.
• The Bench found no reason to interpret Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1969 Supp (2) SCR 270 in a manner conflicting with subsequent judgments, especially when a straightforward reading of the judgment did not support such an interpretation. (Paragraphs 13-16)

Main Issues:

1. Whether Article 370’s provisions were temporary, as originally intended, or if they attained a permanent status within the Constitution?
2. Whether amending Article 367 using the power under Article 370(1)(d) to replace "Constituent Assembly of the State" in Article 370(3) with "Legislative Assembly of the State" was constitutionally valid?
3. Whether the President’s abrogation of Article 370 through CO 272 was constitutionally invalid due to the lack of a recommendation from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, as mandated by the proviso to clause (3)?
4. Whether CO 273, which bifurcated the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories (the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh), was constitutionally valid under the procedure established by Article 3 of the Constitution?