New Delhi, December 8: The Supreme Court will give its verdict on Monday, December 11, on the petitions against the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. CJI D.Y. on the constitutionality of the 2019 presidential order. Chandrachud headed by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. The constitution bench of Gavai and Suryakant will decide. Under this, there is a matter of ending the special status given to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and dividing it into two union territories.
The five-judge Constitution bench heard the oral arguments of both sides on September 5 and reserved its decision.
Regarding the time limit, the Central Government had told the Supreme Court during the hearing that it could not give any realistic time limit. Because the state of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys special status it will take “some time” to restore statehood there. The Central Government also reiterated that the status of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is “temporary”.
![Justice D.Y. Chandrachud](https://www.uitvconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Justice-D.Y.-Chandrachud-e1665469618231.jpg)
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said about the decision of the Constitution Bench in this case that whatever the decision is, it will be “historic” and the Supreme Court’s decision will end the “psychological conflict” present in the minds of the residents of Kashmir Valley. The “psychological dilemma” is that citizens there do not know whether special provisions are temporary or permanent. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that confusion arising out of the nature of Article 370 had created “psychological conflict” in the minds of residents of the Kashmir Valley.
Whereas the petitioners had argued that Article 370 of the Constitution had taken a permanent form after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.
The petitioners had argued for handing over the issue to a larger bench of seven judges. Which was rejected by the Constitution Bench of five judges in March 2020 and the then CJI N.V. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Ramana argued that the judgments given by the apex court in the Prem Nath Kaul case and Sampat Prakash case related to the interpretation of Article 370 were not contradictory.