Four years after Jammu and Kashmir lost its special status, the Supreme Court said the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 was constitutionally valid even as it sought the restoration of statehood for the Union Territory at the earliest. The apex court held that Article 370 was a temporary provision because of war-like conditions in the state.Here's a look back at Article 370, its history, and the subsequent developments over the decades:A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, announced the verdict after a 16-day hearing and a September 5 reservation.Article 370 was included in the Constitution to provide special status to Jammu and Kashmir during its accession to India in 1947. It allowed the state autonomy, its own constitution, and limited parliamentary powers to specific areas like defence, foreign affairs, finance, and communications. Residents had distinct laws on citizenship, property, and fundamental rights. Article 370 stipulated no laws without the 'concurrence' of J&K's constituent assembly.Initially intended as temporary, Article 370 persisted after the J&K constituent assembly's 1957 end. On August 5, 2019, the Government of India revoked Article 370, leading to the bifurcation of J&K into two union territories. Post-revocation, the region saw heightened security measures and communication restrictions. The move garnered domestic and international responses, sparking legal and political debates on constitutional processes and federalism. Multiple petitions challenged the decision in the Supreme Court, with arguments around the permanence of Article 370.During the hearings, the SC questioned the revocation process, citing the absence of a constituent assembly, and deliberated on the temporary nature of Article 370. The Supreme Court's verdict holds significance in determining the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir.