Abrogation of Article 370 is a judgement that needs to be reviewed, says former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur

"...the Article 370, as it existed, consisted of clauses one, two, and three. All three clauses have gone out. And now a new Article 370 has come into the constitution.”

Delving deeper into the subject, Justice Lokur said, "The relationship between the Constitution of India and the state of Jammu and Kashmir, or the Constitution of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, was governed through constitutional orders. And a large number of constitutional orders have been issued from time to time. One of the constitutional orders—Constitutional Order number 48—says that every amendment to the Constitution of India will not ipso facto apply to the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or the state of Jammu and Kashmir unless it is accepted by the state of Jammu and Kashmir or by the government of Jammu and Kashmir. So, if you try to amend the constitution to make it applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, you need the consent of the state government or the legislature."

"So, in that sense, if you look at the reasoning given by the Supreme Court for deleting the substantive portions of Article 370 and bringing in a new Article 370, I am not particularly satisfied with the reasoning nor am I particularly convinced with the reasoning given by the Supreme Court.”

"Now, supposing the government decides to split some other state into two union territories or three union territories, the question will be asked: can you do it? Now, there is no answer given by the Supreme Court, which I thought the Supreme Court should have given."

The Supreme Court on Monday, December 11, upheld the abrogation of Article 370 as constitutionally valid. In a landmark judgement, the apex court held that the Constitution of India is applicable fully to Jammu and Kashmir. The court held that Jammu and Kashmir ceded to the sovereignty of India in totality and does not retain any sovereignty.