Article 370 UPSC : Presidential Orders and Amendments

 4.5/5

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Article 370 UPSC of the Indian Constitution was a temporary provision that granted special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This article allowed the state to have its own constitution, a separate flag, and autonomy over internal matters except defense, communications, and foreign affairs. Enacted in 1949, it was intended to recognize the unique circumstances surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India. The article was often debated and viewed as a significant aspect of India’s federal structure and its relationship with Jammu and Kashmir. On August 5, 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370, effectively revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and integrating it more fully into the Union of India. Understanding the historical context, provisions, and implications of Article 370 is crucial for UPSC aspirants, as it touches upon constitutional law, federalism, and the political history of India.

Origin and Inclusion of Article 370 UPSC
Provisions Under Article 370 UPSC
Temporary Nature of Article 370 UPSC
Presidential Orders and Amendments of Article 370 UPSC
Impact of Article 370 UPSC on Jammu & Kashmir
Debates and Controversies Surrounding Article 370 UPSC
Article 370 UPSC and Supreme Court Judgments
Abrogation of Article 370 UPSC
Frequently Asked Question (FAQs)

Origin and Inclusion of Article 370 UPSC

Origin and Inclusion of Article 370

Historical Context: Article 370 was drafted in the Indian Constitution to address the unique circumstances surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1947.
Temporary Provision: The article was included as a “temporary provision” to grant special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir until a final resolution on its status could be reached.
Role of Sheikh Abdullah: Sheikh Abdullah, the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, played a crucial role in negotiating the terms of this article with the Indian government, ensuring the state’s autonomy.
Autonomous Powers: Under Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution, and the Indian Parliament’s powers over the state were limited to defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications.
Presidential Orders: The President of India could issue orders under Article 370 to extend central laws to Jammu and Kashmir, but these required the state’s concurrence.
Separate Constitution: The state was allowed to have its own constitution, which was drafted by the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in 1951.
Retention of State Subjects: Jammu and Kashmir retained its own laws regarding residency, property ownership, and fundamental rights for its citizens.
Instrument of Accession: Article 370 was a reflection of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, which outlined the terms under which Jammu and Kashmir joined India.
Ambiguity and Debate: The temporary nature of Article 370 led to ambiguity, with ongoing debates on whether it should be abrogated or made permanent.
Abrogation in 2019: The Government of India revoked Article 370 on August 5, 2019, through a Presidential Order, and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Background of Jammu & Kashmir’s Accession

Partition of India: In 1947, British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, with princely states given the choice to join either dominion or remain independent.
Maharaja Hari Singh’s Dilemma: The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, initially sought to remain independent, not committing to either India or Pakistan.
Strategic Location: Jammu and Kashmir’s strategic location, bordering both India and Pakistan, made it a significant region for both countries.
Tribal Invasion: In October 1947, tribal militias from Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir, prompting the Maharaja to seek military assistance from India.
Instrument of Accession: On October 26, 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, agreeing to accede to India in exchange for military aid against the invaders.
Limited Accession: The accession was limited, with the Maharaja ceding only defense, foreign affairs, and communications to the Indian government, retaining autonomy in other matters.
UN Involvement: The accession led to a conflict between India and Pakistan, with the issue being taken to the United Nations, which called for a plebiscite to determine the region’s future.
Ceasefire Agreement: A ceasefire was declared in January 1949, establishing a Line of Control (LoC) that divided Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan.
Special Status: The unique circumstances of accession led to the inclusion of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution, providing special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Political Developments: The accession and subsequent developments have been a central issue in India-Pakistan relations and internal politics within Jammu and Kashmir, influencing the region’s political landscape for decades.

Provisions Under Article 370 UPSC

Provisions Under Article 370

Autonomy: Article 370 granted Jammu and Kashmir significant autonomy, allowing it to have its own constitution, separate from the Indian Constitution.
Limited Parliamentary Powers: The Indian Parliament could legislate on matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir only in areas of defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, as specified in the Instrument of Accession.
Presidential Orders: The President of India could issue orders to apply central laws to Jammu and Kashmir, but only with the concurrence of the state’s government.
Separate Constitution: Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constituent Assembly, which drafted a separate constitution for the state in 1951, defining its governance and legal framework.
Fundamental Rights: The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution were not automatically applicable to Jammu and Kashmir; they were applied selectively through Presidential Orders.
Dual Citizenship: Residents of Jammu and Kashmir were recognized as citizens of India but also had a special status as “state subjects,” with specific rights and privileges.
Special Property Rights: Article 370 allowed Jammu and Kashmir to retain its own laws regarding property ownership, restricting non-residents from purchasing land in the state.
Governor’s Role: The state’s Governor was appointed by the President of India but acted largely on the advice of the state government in most matters.
Emergency Provisions: The President of India could not declare a financial emergency in Jammu and Kashmir, and a state of emergency could be declared only in case of war or external aggression.
Concurrence for Amendments: Any constitutional amendment made by the Indian Parliament did not automatically apply to Jammu and Kashmir unless the state’s Constituent Assembly or government consented.

Special Status Granted to Jammu & Kashmir

Separate Constitution: Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution, which outlined the legal and administrative framework of the state, separate from the Indian Constitution.
Own Flag: The state was permitted to have its own flag, representing its special status within the Indian Union.
Restricted Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the Indian Parliament and the Supreme Court of India was limited in Jammu and Kashmir, with certain laws requiring the state’s consent to be applicable.
Residency Rights: Only permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir, known as “state subjects,” were eligible to own property, vote in state elections, and secure state government jobs.
Autonomous Legislative Powers: The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly had the power to legislate on all matters except those relating to defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications.
Citizenship and Fundamental Rights: The state had its own laws regarding citizenship and fundamental rights, which were distinct from the rights guaranteed to citizens in the rest of India.
Limited Application of Central Laws: Central laws related to matters outside the agreed-upon domains required the state government’s concurrence to be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
Separate Criminal Code: Jammu and Kashmir had its own Penal Code, known as the Ranbir Penal Code, which was distinct from the Indian Penal Code.
Non-Application of Constitutional Amendments: Amendments to the Indian Constitution did not automatically apply to Jammu and Kashmir; they required the state’s agreement to be enforced.
Special Privileges: Permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed certain special privileges, such as scholarships and government assistance, which were not available to non-residents.

Temporary Nature of Article 370 UPSC

Temporary Nature of Article 370

Drafting Intent: Article 370 was intended as a temporary provision in the Indian Constitution, reflecting the unique circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.
Pending Resolution: The temporary nature was linked to the expectation that the status of Jammu and Kashmir would be finalized through a plebiscite or further negotiations, which were anticipated but never occurred.
Constituent Assembly’s Role: The temporary status was also tied to the formation of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which was tasked with drafting the state’s constitution and determining its relationship with India.
Conditional Autonomy: The autonomy granted under Article 370 was seen as conditional, with the understanding that it could be altered or revoked once the state’s Constituent Assembly made a final decision on its status.
Provision for Abrogation: Article 370 included a provision that allowed for its abrogation or modification by a Presidential Order, but only with the concurrence of the state’s Constituent Assembly or later, its Legislative Assembly.
Ambiguity in Implementation: The temporary nature of Article 370 led to ambiguity in its implementation, with debates over its permanence and whether it should be abrogated or continued.
Changing Political Dynamics: The temporary label allowed for flexibility in responding to changing political dynamics within Jammu and Kashmir and the broader Indian Union, particularly as the state’s political landscape evolved.
Constitutional Safeguards: The inclusion of Article 370 in the “Temporary and Transitional Provisions” section of the Indian Constitution signaled its impermanent nature, subject to future changes.
Historical Context: The temporary designation was a product of the historical context of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession, reflecting the uncertain and evolving nature of the region’s relationship with India.
Final Abrogation: The temporary nature of Article 370 was ultimately cited as justification for its abrogation on August 5, 2019, when the Government of India revoked the article through a Presidential Order, integrating Jammu and Kashmir more fully into the Indian Union.

Why Article 370 Was Considered Temporary

Context of Accession: Article 370 was drafted in the context of Jammu and Kashmir’s uncertain political status after its accession to India, making it a temporary measure until a permanent solution could be found.
Plebiscite Promise: The Indian government had committed to a plebiscite to determine the final status of Jammu and Kashmir, leading to the inclusion of Article 370 as a temporary provision.
Transitional Arrangement: Article 370 was viewed as a transitional arrangement to facilitate the integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India, while respecting the state’s unique circumstances.
Formation of the Constituent Assembly: The provision was linked to the formation of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which was expected to decide the state’s future and its relationship with India.
Legal Flexibility: The temporary nature provided legal flexibility, allowing the Indian government to make adjustments as the political situation in Jammu and Kashmir evolved.
Conditional Autonomy: The autonomy granted under Article 370 was conditional, with the expectation that it could be revised or revoked once the state’s Constituent Assembly finalized its decisions.
Ambiguity in Long-Term Application: The temporary designation reflected the ambiguity surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s long-term status, leaving room for future negotiations or legal changes.
Constitutional Safeguard: By labeling it as temporary, the Indian Constitution included safeguards that allowed for the possibility of modifying or abrogating Article 370 in the future.
Political Considerations: The temporary nature also allowed the Indian government to address political concerns both within Jammu and Kashmir and in the broader national context, without making a permanent commitment.
Eventual Abrogation: The temporary designation was ultimately used as a rationale for the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, arguing that the conditions under which it was enacted were no longer relevant.

Presidential Orders and Amendments of Article 370 UPSC

Key Presidential Orders Related to Article 370

1950 Presidential Order: The first Presidential Order under Article 370, issued on January 26, 1950, defined the extent of the Indian Parliament’s legislative powers over Jammu and Kashmir. It applied 38 subjects from the Union List and 7 from the Concurrent List to the state.
1954 Presidential Order: This order was a landmark in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. It extended Indian citizenship and several provisions of the Indian Constitution to the state, including Fundamental Rights, and allowed the application of 94 more subjects from the Union List.
1956 Presidential Order: The order brought more central laws, such as the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, to Jammu and Kashmir, further integrating the state into the Indian legal framework.
1965 Presidential Order: This order replaced the Sadr-e-Riyasat (head of state) with the Governor, who would be appointed by the President of India, marking a significant shift in the state’s autonomy.
1967 Presidential Order: This order extended the application of the Central Service Conduct Rules to Jammu and Kashmir, bringing the state’s civil services under the purview of central regulations.
1972 Presidential Order: After the 1971 Indo-Pak war, this order extended the Emergency Provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, allowing the declaration of a state of emergency due to war or external aggression.
1986 Presidential Order: This order applied Article 249 of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, allowing Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List if it deemed it necessary for national interest.
1994 Presidential Order: This order extended the application of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) to Jammu and Kashmir, reflecting the growing concerns over terrorism in the region.
2015 Presidential Order: This order extended the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to Jammu and Kashmir, though it was later struck down by the Supreme Court of India.
2019 Presidential Order: On August 5, 2019, a critical Presidential Order was issued, effectively abrogating Article 370 by superseding the previous Presidential Orders, and fully integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union as a Union Territory.

Amendments and Modifications Over the Years

1954 Constitutional Application Order: The 1954 order was pivotal in extending the Indian Constitution’s jurisdiction over Jammu and Kashmir, incorporating key provisions like citizenship, Fundamental Rights, and several central laws, setting the stage for future amendments.
1956 State Constitution Adoption: The adoption of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution in 1956, following the recommendations of the Constituent Assembly, established a formal legal and administrative framework, confirming the state’s special status under Article 370.
1963 Amendment: An amendment to Article 356 allowed the President to impose President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir, aligning the state with the provisions applicable to other Indian states during emergencies.
1965 Amendments: These changes replaced the Sadr-e-Riyasat with a Governor appointed by the President of India and the Prime Minister of the state with a Chief Minister, aligning Jammu and Kashmir’s executive structure with other states in India.
1975 Indira-Sheikh Accord: Although not a formal amendment, this agreement between Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah led to several modifications in the relationship between the center and the state, gradually eroding Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy.
1977 Amendment: The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution was extended to Jammu and Kashmir, introducing changes related to the central-state relationship and the powers of the Parliament over the state.
1986 Application of Article 249: Through a Presidential Order, Article 249 was extended to Jammu and Kashmir, allowing the Indian Parliament to legislate on state matters if it was deemed necessary for national interest.
1994 Autonomy Resolutions: In response to growing demands for greater autonomy, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed resolutions seeking the restoration of pre-1953 status, though these demands were not accepted by the Indian government.
2002 Amendment: The 86th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which made education a fundamental right, was extended to Jammu and Kashmir, reflecting the gradual integration of central laws into the state’s legal framework.
2019 Constitutional Amendments: On August 5, 2019, the Indian government passed a resolution to abrogate Article 370 and Article 35A, leading to the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This effectively nullified the special status and brought the entire Indian Constitution into force in the region.

Impact of Article 370 UPSC on Jammu & Kashmir

Impact of Article 370 on Jammu & Kashmir

Autonomy in Governance and Laws

Separate Constitution: Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution, which granted the state significant autonomy in governance, including its own legal framework distinct from the Indian Constitution.
Legislative Authority: The state’s Legislative Assembly had the power to make laws on all matters except defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, allowing for a high degree of self-governance.
Distinct Citizenship: Article 370 allowed Jammu and Kashmir to define its own rules for state citizenship, known as “permanent residents,” who enjoyed special privileges, such as the right to own property and access to government jobs.
Property Rights: The state had exclusive rights to regulate property ownership, which prevented non-residents from buying land in Jammu and Kashmir, maintaining the demographic and cultural identity of the region.
Dual Administration: While Jammu and Kashmir was part of India, the state had its own administrative machinery and operated with a dual system of governance, where central laws had limited applicability.
Judicial Autonomy: The state had its own judicial system, including the Ranbir Penal Code, which functioned separately from the Indian Penal Code, giving Jammu and Kashmir autonomy in legal matters.
Limited Application of Central Laws: Many central laws, including those related to preventive detention, marriage, and education, required the state’s consent to be applicable, ensuring that Jammu and Kashmir retained control over its legal affairs.
Fiscal Autonomy: The state enjoyed a degree of fiscal autonomy, with the power to levy and collect certain taxes, and it received special financial assistance from the central government due to its unique status.
Emergency Provisions: The Indian President could not impose a financial emergency in Jammu and Kashmir, and a state of emergency could only be declared in case of war or external aggression, further safeguarding the state’s autonomy.
Control over Resources: Jammu and Kashmir had significant control over its natural resources, including water and minerals, allowing the state to manage these resources independently of central policies.

Socio-Political and Economic Impact

Political Identity: Article 370 helped preserve the distinct political identity of Jammu and Kashmir, fostering a sense of unique cultural and regional identity among its residents, but also leading to feelings of separateness from the rest of India.
Regional Tensions: The special status fueled regional tensions and sometimes strained relations between Jammu and Kashmir and the central government, with periodic demands for greater autonomy or independence.
Economic Development Challenges: While the state had autonomy, its special status also led to economic isolation, with restrictions on property ownership and investment deterring non-residents and businesses from investing in the region.
Social Equity Issues: The special status created disparities within the state, with certain communities, such as women and refugees from West Pakistan, facing discrimination due to local laws that were not in line with national standards.
Impact on Education: Autonomy in educational policy allowed Jammu and Kashmir to maintain its own curriculum and educational system, but it also led to inconsistencies and gaps compared to the rest of India.

Debates and Controversies Surrounding Article 370 UPSC

Arguments For and Against Article 370

Arguments For Article 370 (10 Points)

Preservation of Cultural Identity: Proponents argue that Article 370 helped preserve the unique cultural and religious identity of Jammu and Kashmir, protecting it from external influences and demographic changes.
Historical Context: Supporters believe that Article 370 was necessary due to the historical circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India, reflecting the state’s distinct political and social situation.
Autonomy in Governance: The article provided Jammu and Kashmir with a degree of autonomy that was crucial for maintaining peace and stability in the region, allowing the state to manage its affairs independently.
Legal and Constitutional Rights: Article 370 allowed Jammu and Kashmir to maintain its own legal and constitutional framework, which many argue was essential for addressing the unique needs of the region.
Protection of Land and Resources: The special status protected the land and resources of Jammu and Kashmir from being exploited by external entities, ensuring that they remained under the control of the local population.
Safeguard Against Central Overreach: It acted as a safeguard against central government overreach, ensuring that the state’s interests were protected and that it could resist unwanted central interventions.
Political Stability: Some argue that the autonomy provided by Article 370 was vital for political stability in the region, as it allowed for a sense of self-governance and local control.
Legal Continuity: The article ensured legal continuity from the time of accession, maintaining the existing laws and governance structures that were in place before Jammu and Kashmir joined India.
Symbol of Trust: Article 370 was seen as a symbol of the trust between the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian government, a key component of the accession agreement.
Gradual Integration: Supporters believe that the special status allowed for a gradual and peaceful integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union, respecting the unique circumstances of the state.

Arguments Against Article 370 (10 Points)

Impediment to National Integration: Critics argue that Article 370 created a barrier to the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India, fostering a sense of separatism and alienation.
Encouragement of Separatism: The special status is seen by some as having encouraged separatist sentiments and insurgency in the region by giving a sense of exceptionalism to the state.
Hindrance to Development: Article 370 is often criticized for hindering economic development by limiting investment, property ownership, and industrialization in Jammu and Kashmir.
Discrimination Against Non-Residents: The article’s provisions discriminated against non-residents, preventing them from buying property or settling in the state, which critics argue contributed to economic stagnation.
Gender Inequality: Critics point out that Article 370, combined with state laws, perpetuated gender inequality by restricting the property rights of women who married outside the state.
Legal Complications: The dual legal framework created complexities and inconsistencies in the application of laws, leading to legal confusion and administrative challenges.
Barrier to National Laws: Article 370 prevented the application of beneficial national laws in Jammu and Kashmir, such as those related to education, anti-corruption, and social welfare.
Dependence on Central Aid: Despite its autonomy, Jammu and Kashmir became heavily dependent on financial aid from the central government, with Article 370 seen as exacerbating this dependency.
Security Challenges: The autonomy granted by Article 370 complicated security operations in the state, making it difficult for central forces to operate effectively against insurgency and terrorism.
Obsolescence: Many argue that the conditions under which Article 370 was enacted no longer existed, making the provision obsolete and a hindrance to the state’s progress and integration with India.

Article 370 UPSC and Supreme Court Judgments

Key Supreme Court Rulings on Article 370

Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1959): The Supreme Court ruled that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had the authority to decide the future of Article 370. The Court stated that the article was intended to be temporary and could be abrogated or modified by the Constituent Assembly.
Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1970): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 370, emphasizing its temporary nature but also acknowledging that it could remain in force until the conditions for its abrogation were met. The Court ruled that Article 370 could not be abrogated or amended without the concurrence of the state’s Constituent Assembly.
Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1972): The Court ruled that the replacement of the Sadr-e-Riyasat (state’s head) with the Governor, appointed by the President of India, was constitutional. This judgment further reduced the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir by aligning it more closely with the other states of India.
Puranlal Lakhanpal v. President of India (1962): The Supreme Court held that the President of India had the power to issue orders under Article 370, applying various provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir with the state’s concurrence.
Kashmir Singh v. Union of India (1990): This case affirmed that Article 370 had become a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution since the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had dissolved without recommending its abrogation or modification.
Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2001): The Supreme Court ruled that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had jurisdiction over the cases within the state but could not question the validity of laws passed by the Parliament or orders issued by the President under Article 370.
State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta (2016): The Court held that certain central laws, like the SARFAESI Act (relating to debt recovery), could be extended to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370, but they needed to be adapted to the state’s conditions, acknowledging the state’s special status.
Ashok Kumar & Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2017): The Supreme Court upheld the special provisions related to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir, ruling that they were constitutionally valid and did not violate the rights of other Indian citizens.
Challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370 (2019): Several petitions were filed challenging the abrogation of Article 370 by the Indian government. The Supreme Court referred the matter to a constitutional bench, and as of the knowledge cutoff, a final judgment is awaited.
Union of India v. Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo (1972): The Court ruled that the President’s power to issue orders under Article 370 was not just a formality and required the concurrence of the state government, ensuring a continued balance between central and state authority.

Judicial Interpretation and Its Evolution

Temporary vs. Permanent: Initially, the Supreme Court recognized Article 370 as a temporary provision, as seen in cases like Prem Nath Kaul (1959). However, over time, judicial interpretation evolved, suggesting that Article 370 had become a permanent feature since the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir did not recommend its abrogation before dissolution.
Role of the Constituent Assembly: Early judgments emphasized the role of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in determining the future of Article 370. The Supreme Court ruled that without the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation, the article could not be unilaterally abrogated or modified.
Centralization of Powers: Over time, the Court’s interpretation shifted towards enabling greater central control. For instance, in Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo (1972), the Court upheld the replacement of the Sadr-e-Riyasat with a Governor appointed by the President, signaling a move towards reducing the state’s autonomy.
Extension of Central Laws: The Supreme Court played a crucial role in extending various central laws to Jammu and Kashmir. In the Puranlal Lakhanpal case (1962), the Court upheld the President’s power to apply central laws to the state, with or without modifications, under Article 370.
Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court often adopted a stance of judicial restraint when dealing with Article 370, avoiding direct confrontations with the political branches of government and emphasizing the need for careful interpretation given the sensitive nature of the issue.

Abrogation of Article 370 UPSC

Abrogation of Article 370

Events Leading to the Abrogation in 2019

Historical Context: The abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 was rooted in long-standing demands from various political groups in India, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which had consistently advocated for the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India without special status.
2014 General Elections: The BJP’s victory in the 2014 general elections brought the issue of Article 370 back into the national spotlight, as it was a key part of their electoral manifesto. The party’s leadership reiterated their commitment to abrogating the article.
Security Concerns: Rising security challenges in Jammu and Kashmir, including ongoing insurgency and terrorist activities, were cited as a major reason for reconsidering the special status, with the argument that it hindered effective governance and security measures.
Amarnath Yatra Incident: In July 2019, the government abruptly canceled the Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage, citing security threats. This move, along with the deployment of additional troops to the region, fueled speculation that a significant change was imminent.
Communication Blackout: In early August 2019, the government imposed a complete communication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir, including the suspension of internet, mobile, and landline services. This was a precursor to the announcement of the abrogation.

Constitutional and Legal Procedures Followed

Presidential Order 2019: The abrogation process began with the issuance of Presidential Order C.O. 272 on August 5, 2019. This order superseded the previous Presidential Order of 1954, effectively nullifying the special provisions accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.
Article 367 Interpretation: The Presidential Order also amended Article 367 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the interpretation of constitutional provisions. It added a new clause to Article 367, which effectively replaced the term “Constituent Assembly of the State” with “Legislative Assembly of the State,” allowing the central government to bypass the need for the state’s Constituent Assembly’s concurrence.
Parliamentary Approval: Following the Presidential Order, the Union Government introduced a resolution in both houses of Parliament to abrogate Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill, 2019. The resolution and the bill were passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses.
Bifurcation into Union Territories: The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, was passed by Parliament, which led to the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with legislative powers) and Ladakh (without legislative powers).
Revocation of Article 35A: Along with Article 370, Article 35A, which provided special rights and privileges to the “permanent residents” of Jammu and Kashmir, was also nullified through the same process, thereby removing the state’s unique privileges.

Freqently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What was Article 370 of the Indian Constitution?

Ans: Article 370 was a provision that granted special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, allowing it to have its own constitution and significant autonomy in governance, except in matters of defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications.

Q2: When was Article 370 abrogated?

Ans: Article 370 was abrogated on August 5, 2019, through a Presidential Order and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019.

Q3: What were the key provisions of Article 370?

Ans: Key provisions included granting Jammu and Kashmir its own constitution, special status, control over land and resources, and autonomy in most legislative matters. Central laws required the state’s concurrence to be applicable.

Q4: What was the impact of the abrogation of Article 370?

Ans: The abrogation led to the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, its reorganization into two Union Territories (Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh), and the full applicability of Indian laws and Constitution to the region.

Q5: Why was Article 370 considered temporary?

Ans: Article 370 was considered temporary because it was meant to be a provisional arrangement until Jammu and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly decided on the state’s future status. With the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, its status was seen as transitional.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.