Is it a hearing on Law or History? Who benefits? 

Abrogation of article 370 in August 2019 and the re-organization of the state of Jammu &  Kashmir(J&K) is being heard by a five member bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India, Justice Chandrachud. The hearing was  triggered by ~2 dozen petitions that have been filed by different individuals or organisations. 

As I follow the proceedings in the highest court of India over the last week, I understand that the debate is centred around the following points: 

• The Maharaja of J&K in October of 1947, few months after India got her independence, signed an Instrument of Accession(IOA) agreeing to be part the Dominion of India but giving restrictive rights to the Dominion of India to form or extend legislations for/to his kingdom and retaining rights to himself to concur on any other legislations before they are applied. The IOA has been referenced by certain petitioners to highlight the restrictions imposed on the Union Government or President of India to apply legislations or Presidential orders to the state of J&K. Zafar Shah, a senior counsel representing  the petitioners argued that the IOA signed by the Maharaja of J&K with India in October 1947, was akin to an action of the state shaking hands but not embracing India.
• The constitution of India came into existence after the Instrument of Accession was executed for the state of J&K in 1950 and the constitution honoured the IOA through Article 370 giving J&K special status with a stated intent to make it temporary and transitional. The article allowed the Parliament to legislate directly on restricted matters, conferring the legislative powers on other matters on the Constituent Assembly constituted with the elected representatives by the people of the state or only with the concurrence of such Constituent Assembly.   The Constituent Assembly was later dissolved since 1957 when J&K became a state of the Union of India and elections were held to form the legislative assembly without having any merger agreement in place, unlike other states. Article 370 was not amended and continued to provide special status to J&K 
• According to the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, the integration of J&K with the country was “absolutely complete” as soon as Article 1 of the Indian Constitution came into force, declaring it to be a part of the Union of India and therefore, no questions could now be raised regarding the “complete merger” of J&K.  The bench emphasised that distribution of legislative powers, or a restriction on the Centre to frame laws on certain subjects or in some states, does not affect the fact that sovereignty rests only with the Union of India. The bench also questioned that in the absence of the Constituent Assembly, who would be authorised to abrogate Article 370 (as it was meant to be temporary and transitional right in its formation) if the President of India is not. 
• The counsel on behalf of the petitioners presented their view that for J&K, the abrogation of 370 could only happen if the council of ministers or the state assembly, being the representative of the people of J&K, agrees or concurs on such abrogation. But the challenge is that the state assembly was dissolved and the state was under the President’s rule before the abrogation was promulgated by the President. 

So, does the President of India have the power to abrogate Article 370? Is that the main question? Or are we going round and round in circles to find the right question? Am I correct if I infer that the debate is not whether abrogation of Article 370 is good for the people of J&K…. the debate is whether certain offices have the power to withdraw or continue with the special status of J&K.  If the impact of the withdrawal of special status is not in the agenda who will benefit out of these arguments and the awaited decision? I am not sure if the people of J&K and the common citizens of the country will be keen to understand / know whether a protocol or procedure followed to abrogate Article 370 was right or wrong, especially in a context which is overloaded with history that goes back by 76 years during our independence from the British Raj.  Don’t you think that the relevance of Article 370 for J&K today will be a debate that is worth engaging with rather than the adherence to a process of abrogation?