New Delhi: Article 370 is a temporary provision, introduced to serve two purposes – transitional and temporary, the Supreme Court said today, while upholding the constitutional order that read down the Article in Jammu and Kashmir, after hearing the petitions challenging the Narendra Modi government's move and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir state into two Union Territories in August 2019.

On whether Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty or internal sovereignty when it joined the Union of India, the court said that its judgment is that it has not.

It directed the Election Commission to conduct polls to the J&K assembly before September 30, 2024.

It also held the creation of the UT of Ladakh as valid.

It also said that the president's use of power in this regard was valid and not malafide. And that the president's power to notify the reading down of Article 370 subsists even after the dissolution of the constituent assembly of J&K.

The question of whether the parliament can convert a state into a Union Territory is left open, the court said, adding that it is doing so because the solicitor general has promised that statehood will be restored.

The bench also added that not every decision by the Centre can be challenged.

This bench comprises Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant. This bench had reserved judgment in the case, which it heard for 16 days, on September 5. There was a three-year gap in the matter's listing.

The apex court pronounced three judgments. One by CJI Chandrachud for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant. A concurring opinion was authored by Justice Kaul and Justice Khanna concurred with both, the CJI said.

Several petitions had challenged the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act – brought unilaterally by the Modi government on August 5, 2019.

The CJI, while reading out the judgment said the issues at hand were: whether Article 370 is temporary, whether substitution of 'constituent assembly' by legislative assembly by using 370(1)(d) is valid, and also whether the Presidential Order is invalid for lack of recommendation of J&K Constituent Assembly.

The court also considered as to whether the Presidential Rule imposed in December 2018 and its subsequent extensions are valid.

Most importantly, the court considered whether the J&K Reorganisation Act is constitutionally valid.

In the course of bringing this legislation, the Union government put Kashmir's mainstream politicians and others in prolonged house arrest, and brought in what was then the longest period of internet shutdown in a territory.

In July, the Union government had said that the decision has “brought an unprecedented development, progress, security, and stability to the region, which was often missing during the old Article 370 regime”.

Among opposition leaders who tweeted their reactions after the verdict were Kapil Sibal and National Conference's Omar Abdullah. The latter had been in house arrest for months after the move.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.