Article 370 — Origin, Abrogation, 2023 Verdict

The text of Article 370 — what it said

Article 370 sat in Part XXI of the Constitution — titled "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions." It read, in substance:

• Clause (1)(a): Article 1 (defining India as Union of States) and Article 370 itself applied automatically to J&K.
• Clause (1)(b): Parliament's law-making power over J&K was limited to the three Instrument of Accession subjects — defence, foreign affairs, communications.
• Clause (1)(c): Other provisions of the Indian Constitution could be applied to J&K only by the President's order, with the concurrence of the J&K State Government.
• Clause (1)(d): Other matters not in the Union or Concurrent Lists could be applied with concurrence and consultation as the President specified.
• Clause (2): Provided that the concurrence of the State Government required ratification by the J&K Constituent Assembly before it became final.
• Clause (3): The President could, by public notification, declare Article 370 to cease to be operative — but only on the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly.

The placement in Part XXI, the title "Temporary," and Clause (3)'s self-destruct mechanism all reflected the framers' expectation that the Article would not be permanent. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, then Law Minister, had initially refused to draft the Article. The final draft was written by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar (a former Diwan of J&K and a member of the Drafting Committee) in close consultation with Sheikh Abdullah and the J&K interim government.

Origin: the 1947 accession and the special bargain

The 1954 Constitutional Order — the special status hardens

In the years immediately after independence, the J&K state's relationship with the Union was governed by the original Instrument of Accession. The state's own Constituent Assembly was convened in November 1951 to draft a state Constitution. Sheikh Abdullah served as Prime Minister of J&K (the title used in the state until 1965).

The pivotal moment came with the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370(1) with the concurrence of the J&K Constituent Assembly. This Order:

• Extended Indian citizenship (Articles 5-10) to J&K, but with the rider that the J&K legislature could define "permanent residents" and their privileges;
• Inserted Article 35A — empowering the J&K Legislature to confer special rights on permanent residents in employment, immovable property and settlement;
• Extended most Fundamental Rights to J&K, with modifications (notably Article 19 was qualified);
• Made the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction (Article 32) applicable to J&K.

The J&K Constitution itself was adopted on 17 November 1956 and came into effect on 26 January 1957. On the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly that same year (1957), a critical legal question emerged: since Article 370(3) required the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly before the President could declare the Article inoperative, did the Assembly's dissolution effectively freeze Article 370 forever? This question would not be answered until 2023.

Gradual erosion: 1954-2018

Far from being "frozen", Article 370 was the most-amended provision of the Indian Constitution by use. Between 1954 and 2018, the President issued 47 Constitutional Orders under Article 370 progressively extending Indian constitutional provisions and central laws to J&K — typically with the concurrence of the State Government.

By 2018, the practical autonomy of J&K had been substantially diluted:

• 1964 — Article 356 (President's Rule) and Article 357 extended to J&K.
• 1965 — The titles "Sadar-i-Riyasat" and "Prime Minister" replaced by "Governor" and "Chief Minister," aligning J&K with other states.
• 1976 — All-India Services Act extended; IAS and IPS officers serving in J&K.
• 1986 — Article 249 (Parliament's law-making power in state subjects) extended.
• By 2019 — 94 of 97 Union List items, 26 of 47 Concurrent List items, and 260 of 395 Articles of the Indian Constitution applied to J&K.

Critically, by 2018 a Supreme Court Constitution Bench in SBI v. Santosh Gupta (2017) had explicitly held that "Article 370 is permanent" — a view that directly contradicted the framers' design.

The abrogation: 5-6 August 2019

The abrogation was carried out via a sequence of legal instruments. The state was under President's Rule since 20 June 2018 (after the BJP withdrew support to the PDP coalition), so the powers of the State Government — including the concurrence required under Article 370 — were exercised by the Centre through the Governor.

The J&K Reorganisation Act — what changed on the ground

The 2023 Constitution Bench verdict

Over 20 petitions challenged the abrogation. A 5-judge Constitution Bench — Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant — heard arguments for 16 days in August-September 2023. The judgment was delivered on 11 December 2023.

The bench was unanimous in upholding the abrogation but spread across three opinions. The Court held:

1. Article 370 was a temporary provision. Its placement in Part XXI (Temporary, Transitional, Special), the title of the Article, and the framers' debates all confirmed its non-permanent character.
2. J&K did not retain sovereignty after the Instrument of Accession. The Yuvraj Karan Singh's Proclamation of 25 November 1949 affirmed that the Indian Constitution would supersede inconsistent provisions of the J&K Constitution. Sovereignty was fully transferred to India.
3. The dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly did not freeze Article 370(3). The President could still exercise the power, with the concurrence of the J&K Government (or, during President's Rule, the Union).
4. The procedure followed in 2019 was constitutional. While the use of CO 272 to amend Article 367 (the interpretation clause) to substitute "Constituent Assembly" with "Legislative Assembly" was held to be problematic — the Court found that Article 370(3) could be invoked directly without resort to that route.
5. Reorganisation into UTs did not violate basic structure. Federalism is a basic feature, but the temporary downgrade of J&K from state to UT was a permissible legislative choice given the special security and integration context. Statehood, the Court directed, must be restored "as soon as possible."
6. Elections to the J&K Legislative Assembly were directed to be held by 30 September 2024 (subsequently held in three phases September-October 2024).

Justice S.K. Kaul, in his concurring opinion, additionally proposed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for J&K to examine human rights violations from the 1980s onwards — a recommendation the government has not yet acted upon.

"Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism. It was not a feature of sovereignty." — Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, 11 December 2023.

Impact and statehood roadmap

Elections: J&K Legislative Assembly elections were held in three phases between 18 September and 1 October 2024 — the first since 2014. The NC-Congress alliance won 49 seats; Omar Abdullah was sworn in as the first Chief Minister of the UT on 16 October 2024.

Investment and economy: Land acquisitions by non-domiciles, the New Industrial Development Scheme (Rs 28,400 crore allocated 2021-37), and a sharp rise in tourism (over 2 crore tourists in 2023) have been the government's metrics of success. Critics point to continuing internet shutdowns, civil liberties concerns, and unfulfilled promises around job creation for local youth.

Statehood restoration: The Supreme Court directed the Union to restore J&K's statehood "as soon as possible" in its December 2023 verdict. As of 2026, the Union government has indicated this will follow stable governance under the elected UT government — a precise timeline has not been committed to in writing.

Constitutional perspectives — the ongoing debate

Both views are legitimate constitutional positions taken by serious commentators. For UPSC answers, the high-scoring approach is to present both perspectives evenhandedly, ground them in the Constituent Assembly Debates and the 2023 verdict, and conclude with the Court's directive on statehood restoration.

UPSC Previous Year Questions

Related reading on Padho.club