A number of petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court to challenge the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Supreme Court today resumed hearing on petitions challenging the Modi government's move to revoke Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir ending its special status. Senior advocate Zafar Ahmed Shah had argued on Wednesday for the petitioners and continued his case saying promises made to the then princely state of Jammu and Kashmir were key to understand the validity of Article 370. A little exchange between Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and counsel Shah took place today. Justice Kaul asked Shah, "Was the Instrument of Accession signed by Kashmir different from the one signed by other princely states?" Shah answered saying, "Substantially no." But he insisted that there was a principle difference in Jammu and Kashmir agreement. Unlike other states, Jammu and Kashmir did not enter into two succeeding pacts -- Standstill Agreement and Merger agreement. Arguing for the central government Attorney General KK Venugopal told the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court that historical account of Jammu and Kashmir's merger with India was not correct. The attorney general argued that records suggest that Pakistan-trained tribesmen were sent to create insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Under attack from Pakistan, the Maharaja asked for India's help that led to signing of the Instrument of Accession. The Maharaja had entered into a standstill agreement with Pakistan, which violated this pact by sending truckloads of trained tribesmen with intention to overtake Jammu and Kashmir, the attorney general told the Supreme Court. Repeated references were made to two previous judgments - Prem Nath Kaul case and Sampat Prakash case - during arguments in the Supreme Court. Both relate to Jammu and Kashmir. The attorney general insisted that the Sampat Prakash case was irrelevant in the present case over Article 370 while the Prem Nath Kaul judgment upheld the legality of the Instrument of Accession. With this argument, he objected to the suggestions from the petitioners to refer this case to a larger bench. The current bench is headed by Justice N V Ramana with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant also sitting on it. A number of petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court to challenge the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.