The first part of the constitution talks about India’s official name and its states. In the same Article 3 of the constitution, it gives power to the parliament to form any new state and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of any existing state.
In the case of Haji Abdul Gani Khan vs Union of India, the supreme court bench held by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice AS Oka stated the statement while dismissing the delimitation of J&K.
Under Article 3, Parliament has the power which even extends to UT. Article 4(2) says that no law would be made by Article 3 considered an amendment of the constitution for the purpose of Article 368.
The bench stated that if the legislative body is created in the UT of J&K and Puducherry it would not be considered as an amendment because of Article 4.
The argument of the petitioner regarding the violation of the provision mentioned in Article 170(3) was also rejected by the bench throwing light on that it does not deal with the legislature of UT at all.
The court also mentioned that Article 239A and 239AA are the part of VIII constitution that deals with the creation of a body to function as a legislature and council of ministers for certain UTs. As per Section 12 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, Article 239A became applicable to the UT and as per Article 239(2), the law contemplated and would not be considered an amendment under Article 368.
The newly created Union Territory of J&K cannot be compared to northern states like Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland in the respect of the delimitation exercise also mentioned by the bench.