In August 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the argument made by those opposing the application of Article 370 that Jammu and Kashmir, unlike other states, had a unique relationship with India that had grown over time to be an unchangeable and fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution.
Senior lawyer Gopal Shankaranarayanan was tasked with concluding the nine-day challengers' arguments when he said, "It is provided in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that this provision cannot be abrogated without the express consent and recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly."
“That is because the state of J&K, unlike other princely states, had inked a special relationship marked by pure federal characteristics. This was honoured by the Constituent Assembly of India and endorsed by the J&K Constituent Assembly, which framed a separate constitution for the state. Both promised a special relationship guaranteeing internal autonomy to J&K, which cannot be arbitrarily repudiated as was done on August 5, 2019,” he argued.
The CJI-led bench did not agree with the reasoning. “Does that mean anything said by the J&K Constituent Assembly would bind the Indian nation, its executive and Parliament? Post-1957 (when J&K adopted its constitution), it (the special relationship) had to be embodied in a binding arrangement reflected in our Constitution, which was never done. Everyone went on with a working arrangement characterised by issuance of Constitution (Application to J&K) Orders from time to time. The idea was to gradually bring J&K to the mainstream,” it said.
“Though the J&K constitution outlined the state’s relationship with India, unless the contours of that relationship were embodied in the Constitution of India, how will it bind the dominion of India or successive Parliaments and executives of India?” CJI Chandrachud asked.