Five judge bench of the Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on Article 370 today

Petitioners challenging the legality of the move have told the Supreme Court that the abrogation of Article 370 was politically motivated and not constitutionally tenable. They further said that the Jammu & Kashmir constituent assembly did not decide on the satus of Article 370, allowing it to become permanent and that there is no constitutional mechanism available for a repeal.

Jammu & Kashmir had signed an instrument of accession but there was no transfer of sovereignity and that its autonomy ought to be maintained, according to the petitioners, who also said that the reorganisation of the state into Union Territories requires approval from the Jammu & Kashmir assembly for which no consent was sought or granted.

In response, the centre has maintained its stance to the court that due process was followed for the abrogation of Article 370 and that it was "not permanent" as it was classified as "temporary, transitional and special provisions" under Part XXI of Constitution.

On acceding to India by signing Instrument of Accession, Jammu & Kashmir surrendered sovereignity to India, said the Government, who also cited Karan Singh's proclaimation that the Constitution of India shall supersede and abrogate all other provisions with respect to the state.

Karan Singh is the son of Maharaja Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of Jammu & Kashmir when it signed the Instrument of Accession.

The government has also maintained that although the Union Territory status for Jammu & Kashmir is temporary, no timelines can be given for restoring statehood.