In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India faces several review petitions challenging its recent unanimous decision to uphold the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This controversial ruling, issued by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on December 23, validated the central government's 2019 action to abrogate Article 370, a move that subsequently led to the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.

Among the petitioners, the Awami National Conference and Muzaffar Iqbal have filed separate pleas. Iqbal, in particular, has openly criticized the Supreme Court's judgment. The core contention lies in the court's refusal to examine the legality of the 2019 law facilitating the region's bifurcation, a decision that has drawn criticism from various quarters, including former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman.

Justice Nariman's disapproval is rooted in the potential impact of this ruling on federalism, asserting that it empowers the Union government to bypass Article 356, which limits the imposition of President's Rule in a state. Echoing these concerns, Fali S. Nariman, a distinguished jurist and the father of Justice Rohinton Nariman, lamented the absence of dissenting opinions in such landmark decisions.

The review petitions underscore several legal quandaries surrounding the revocation of Article 370. They question the Supreme Court's perspective on the 2019 law and seek a judicial reevaluation of its validity and consequences, particularly regarding the region's division.

These petitions highlight broader issues about executive authority, federalism, and constitutional processes in matters of national significance. The legal community and the public now await the Supreme Court's response to these petitions and whether it will reconsider its position on the various legal arguments presented.