Aug 26, 2025
20
mins read
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was a temporary provision granting special autonomous status to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. The special status granted came from the region’s unique constitutional history as an erstwhile princely state. Integration with the Union required protecting autonomy until a future constitution was framed. It allowed Jammu & Kashmir to have its own constitution, flag and autonomy over internal matters, while India retained defence, foreign affairs and communications. Article 35A (added via 1954 presidential order) further empowered Jammu & Kashmir to define “permanent residents” with exclusive property and employment rights.
In a constitutional overhaul on 5 August 2019, the Indian Government issued presidential orders and Parliament passed resolutions to abrogate Article 370, converting Jammu & Kashmir into two Union Territories. This move aimed at full integration, economic growth and security, but also sparked debates on federalism and rights.
On August 5, 2025, the Prime Minister marked the sixth anniversary of Article 370 abrogation, reiterating that the move aimed at integration, development, and improved security outcomes for Jammu and Kashmir.
Supreme Court Verdict Confirmation: On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark 5-0 verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370, affirming Jammu and Kashmir's full integration into India.
Current Developments: The Supreme Court directed restoration of statehood "at the earliest" and set a September 30, 2024 deadline for Assembly elections, which were successfully conducted.
Table of content
Article 35A was introduced through a Presidential Order of 1954, following the Delhi Agreement between the Indian Union and Jammu & Kashmir’s leadership.
It granted special status by empowering the state legislature to define the state’s permanent residents and their exclusive rights, including government jobs, land ownership, and access to welfare schemes.
In August 2019, the Government revoked Kashmir’s special status, reorganized the state into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Union Territory, citing national security and the need for uniform legislative powers across the entire region.
This change ended the permanent status granted under Article 35A, aligning the region with broader Indian laws and curbing preventive detention laws unique to the state.
Partition and Independence (1947): Following the partition of British India in 1947 into India and Pakistan, princely states were given the option to accede to either India or Pakistan, based on geographical contiguity, demographics, and the wishes of the princely states’ rulers. Jammu & Kashmir, a princely state with a Muslim-majority population and a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, became a crucial point of contention between India and Pakistan.
Accession to India: Initially, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu & Kashmir, wanted to maintain independence. However, as tribal invaders from Pakistan launched attacks on the region, he sought military assistance from India. In October 1947, he signed the Instrument of Accession, acceding the princely state to India.
Acceptance by India: The Instrument of Accession was accepted by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on behalf of the Government of India, leading to the deployment of Indian troops in Jammu & Kashmir to repel the invaders.
United Nations Intervention: India’s decision to send troops to Jammu & Kashmir led to international scrutiny, with Pakistan taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). A ceasefire was eventually brokered, leading to the Line of Control (LoC) being established, dividing the region into territories administered by India and Pakistan.
Article 370: As part of the accession negotiations, Article 370 was included in the Indian Constitution, granting special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Table: Key Events in Article 370’s History
Year | Event | Details & Source |
1947 Oct | Instrument of Accession | J&K acceded to India, ceding only defence, foreign affairs, communications. |
1952 | Delhi Agreement | The accord affirmed J&K’s autonomy: residuary powers stayed with the state and J&K domiciles were Indian citizens. |
1956-57 | J&K Constitution | J&K adopted its own constitution (effective Jan 26, 1957) under Art.370. |
2019 Aug 5 | Abrogation of Art.370 | Presidential Order 2019 redefined “Constituent Assembly” to “Legislative Assembly” of J&K, enabling revocation of Art.370. |
2019 Oct 31 | Reorganisation Act Effective | Jammu & Kashmir split into two Union Territories (J&K with legislature; Ladakh without) via J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019. |
2023 Dec | SC Verdict (Constitution Bench) | The Supreme Court (5-0) upheld the abrogation of Art.370 and Art.35A as constitutional. |
Special status and scope
Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir limited application of the Constitution of India, letting the state have its own Constitution and control over internal matters; defence, foreign affairs, and communications stayed with the Central government under the Instrument of Accession.
Article 1 (India as a Union of States) applied; other provisions could extend only through Presidential Orders issued under Article 370.
Distribution of powers
Initially, the Indian Parliament could legislate for Jammu and Kashmir only on defence, foreign affairs, and communications; adding more subjects needed concurrence of the state government.
Through Presidential Orders, the Central government could apply parts of the Constitution and central laws to the state with modifications or exceptions.
Role of the Constituent Assembly
Concurrence given by the state government was provisional and required ratification by the state’s Constituent Assembly; after the Assembly dissolved in 1957, the future scope of extensions became the key constitutional issue.
Article 35A (permanent residents)
A 1954 Presidential Order inserted Article 35A, allowing Jammu and Kashmir to define “permanent residents” and grant special rights in property, public jobs, and scholarships until 2019.
Despite its origins, Article 370 was long controversial. Critics argued:
Barrier to Integration:
It fostered a sense of separateness and impeded J&K’s full integration with India.
The “temporary” special status lasted decades, unlike other states, feeding regional distinctiveness.
Economic Constraints:
Special status exempted J&K from most Indian business, tax and land laws. Observers noted it hindered investment and infrastructure development.
Industries and property markets shunned the state due to restrictions on non-resident ownership.
Discriminatory Rights:
Article 35A’s privileges for permanent residents were seen as violating equality (women from J&K who married outsiders lost property rights).
Non-residents were barred from owning land or jobs, raising concerns over equal citizenship rights.
Security and Insurgency:
Some blamed Art.370 for fueling alienation and militancy.
Critics argued Pakistan-backed militants exploited J&K’s autonomy, complicating counter-insurgency.
They claimed special status perpetuated political discontent.
These criticisms featured in political debates leading up to 2019, setting the stage for the abrogation.
Process of Abrogation
Presidential Order (5 Aug 2019): The Union government issued The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019, which amended Article 367. It replaced references to the “Constituent Assembly” with “Legislative Assembly” of J&K. Since the J&K Assembly was dissolved (under President’s Rule), this allowed the Centre to assume its powers.
Parliamentary Resolutions: On 5–6 August 2019, resolutions to abrogate Article 370 were passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, each by a majority. Under Article 370(3), the President used his powers to declare Article 370 inoperative, following the advice of the Union Cabinet (effectively Parliament’s resolutions). This process did not involve a formal amendment by Art.368.
J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019: Simultaneously, Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act. It bifurcated the former state into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislative assembly) and Ladakh (without one).
Reasons for Abrogation of Article 370
The government’s stated motives for abrogation included:
Full Integration: Article 370 was seen as a legal hurdle to making J&K fully subject to the Indian Constitution. Removing it would allow uniformity of laws and strengthen national unity.
Economic Development: Officials argued that ending special status would attract investment and tourism. Relaxation of residency rules was expected to spur real estate and industry.
National Security: The Centre claimed Article 370 was exploited by separatist forces. Abrogation meant central security laws (e.g. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) now applied directly, aiding counter-terrorism.
Good Governance & Rights: Extending laws like the Right to Information Act and Central Vigilance Commission to J&K promised greater transparency.
Policy Framing: Policy intent, as articulated by the Prime Minister and the Central government, linked the abrogation to uniform application of the Constitution, economic opportunities, and rights-based governance.
Criticisms of the Abrogation of Article 370
The move itself was controversial. Critics pointed out:
Constitutional Process: Opponents argued that Article 370(3) required the concurrence of the J&K Constituent Assembly to amend or abrogate it. Since that Assembly was dissolved (in 1956), they claimed the President’s action stretched constitutional limits. The Centre countered that Parliament, under President’s Rule, could advise such an order.
Political Opposition: Regional parties and some national leaders condemned the step as undermining J&K’s autonomy and identity. They viewed it as a unilateral central action inconsistent with federal norms.
Human Rights Concerns: The abrogation day saw a communications blackout and detention of hundreds of local leaders and activists.
Know more about the federal structure of India : Federalism in Indian Polity, Federal features, Evolution, Significance and Challenges - PadhAI
The removal of Article 370 has had wide-ranging effects:
Administrative Changes
Jammu & Kashmir was reconstituted as a Union Territory with a state legislative assembly, and Ladakh became a separate UT without an assembly.
The J&K Legislative Assembly’s seats were reserved (e.g., for Scheduled Tribes) and its elected term was set at 5 years. The office of Lieutenant Governor was created in both UTs.
Legal Integration
The Indian Constitution (including Article 1 declaring India a Union of States) now fully applies to both UTs. J&K’s own constitution became defunct. All central laws automatically extended to J&K/Ladakh.
For example, the Ranbir Penal Code (J&K’s former IPC) was replaced by the Indian Penal Code (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
Economic Impact
The government launched development initiatives (e.g. Prime Minister’s Development Package, Industrial Development Scheme) in J&K.
Land and domicile laws were liberalized: a 2020 Domicile Order made non-residents eligible for govt jobs and scholarships, and 14 state land laws were amended to allow outsiders to buy property.
Social and Political Impact
The government reports improved security. Official data show a >50% decline in terrorist incidents in J&K since 2019. Over 300 militants were neutralized in four years. Tourism has surged: J&K saw ~1.62 crore visitors in 2022 and 21.1 million in 2023 (the highest in 75 years).
Voter turnout has also risen – for instance, the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in J&K recorded the highest participation in 35 years, with a ~30 percentage point increase in the Valley.
Legal Challenges
Dozens of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the abrogation’s constitutionality.
These cases were referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. In December 2023, the Court upheld the abrogation, validating the presidential orders and reorganisation legislation.
Temporary Provision: The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 370 was always a temporary measure. It held that J&K did not retain “internal sovereignty” apart from India.
Governor’s Powers: Under Article 356 (President’s Rule), the Governor (the President’s appointee) can exercise all legislative powers of the state. The Court cited S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), confirming that during President’s Rule, Parliament can legislate (and effectively govern) for the state. Thus, Parliamentary resolutions and orders in 2019 were valid.
Concurrence Not Required: The Court ruled that the President could invoke his powers under Article 370(3) to declare all of Article 370 inoperative. The traditional requirement of the J&K government’s concurrence (in Art.370(1)(d) proviso) was overridden when Parliament, citing President’s Rule, advised the President. No separate state concurrence was needed.
Restoration of Statehood: The Court emphasized that J&K’s statehood should be restored “as soon as possible” and ordered elections to its legislative assembly by 30th September 2024. This indicates an intent to return to some democratic process.
Shah Faesal & Others v. Union of India (2019): Petitioners challenged the 2019 Presidential Orders and reorganisation, arguing these violated the Constitution’s basic structure by bypassing democracy. This was one of the principal cases before the SC.
Constitution Bench: The Supreme Court combined these cases and heard them before a five-judge Bench. Notices were issued in 2019, but final hearings wrapped up only by late 2023.
The Court’s unanimous 2023 judgment dismissed these petitions and upheld the 2019 actions. No further appeals are possible, making the abrogation binding law.
Current Status
Jammu & Kashmir functions as a Union Territory with an elected Legislative Assembly now in place; Ladakh remains a separate Union Territory without a legislature, administered by the Lieutenant Governor under the President’s authority.
Parliament retains overriding legislative competence on Union and Concurrent subjects applicable to Union Territories; areas like “Public Order” and “Police” continue to be centrally controlled for UTs unless statehood is restored.
Future Prospects
Statehood and SC context: The Supreme Court upheld the 2019 measures and recorded the Union’s assurance that statehood for Jammu & Kashmir will be restored “at the earliest”; with Assembly elections now conducted, the next step is a time‑bound roadmap for restoration of Statehood while Ladakh remains a separate Union Territory.
Governance focus: Policy attention will stay on Centre–UT coordination, Assembly‑executive functioning, and delivery on infrastructure, investment, jobs, and welfare to consolidate recent administrative changes.
Security–rights balance: With authorities citing improved security indicators and higher civic participation, sustaining due‑process safeguards and transparent policing/communications will remain important to public trust.
Legal follow‑through: Core constitutional issues are settled post‑verdict; narrower litigation may continue around specific rules (e.g., domicile/land, reservations) and administrative discretion, so candidates should track incremental judicial updates..
Mains
Q. To what extent is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, bearing marginal note “Temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, temporary? Discuss The future prospects of this provision in the context of Indian polity. (2016)
Q. What was Article 370?
A. A temporary constitutional provision granting Jammu & Kashmir special autonomous status. J&K had its own constitution and legislature; only defence, foreign affairs and communications were under India.
Q. What was Article 35A?
A. A clause added via Article 370 that allowed J&K’s legislature to define “permanent residents” and grant them exclusive land and job rights.
Q. Why was Article 370 abrogated?
A. The government cited the need for full integration of J&K with India, economic development, improved security against terrorism, and equal rights for all citizens.
Q. How was Article 370 removed?
A. It was revoked on Aug 5, 2019 by a Presidential Order and simultaneous Parliament resolutions (under President’s Rule), followed by the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act.
Q. What changed after Article 370’s abrogation?
A. J&K lost special status and became a Union Territory (bifurcated into J&K and Ladakh); the Indian Constitution and all central laws now apply to the region. Non-residents can buy property, and the economy and tourism have seen renewed growth.
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was a temporary provision with respect to Jammu and Kashmir that granted the state special autonomous status. Its abrogation on 5 August 2019 – via presidential order and Parliament’s resolution – marked a pivotal change in India’s constitutional and federal framework.
This decision aimed to ensure full integration of J&K into the Indian Union, promote economic development and strengthen security. UPSC aspirants must note that Article 370 is now inoperative, J&K (and Ladakh) function under Union Territory status, and the Supreme Court has upheld these changes. Understanding this episode is essential for topics on Indian polity, federalism and regional development.
Internal Linking Suggestions
40 Most Important Supreme Court Judgements of India : Landmark Judgements UPSC
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: Right to Constitutional Remedies, 5 Writs, Significance
How to Begin Your UPSC Preparation : The Ultimate Guide For Beginners
UPSC Previous Year Question Papers with Answers PDF - Prelims & Mains (2014-2024)
Parliamentary Committees in India: Functions, Types & Significance, UPSC Notes
External Linking Suggestions
UPSC Official Website – Syllabus & Notification: https://upsc.gov.in/
Press Information Bureau – Government Announcements: https://pib.gov.in/
NCERT Official Website – Standard Books for UPSC: https://ncert.nic.in
