For seven decades, Article 370 of the Indian Constitution gave Jammu and Kashmir a special status unlike any other state: its own constitution, its own flag, and autonomy over most subjects except defence, foreign affairs and communications. In August 2019, the central government revoked this provision, reorganised the state into two Union Territories, and redrew the constitutional map of India. The move was among the most consequential, and contested, political decisions of recent decades.

Where Article 370 came from

Article 370 grew out of the circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1947. The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh ceded only defence, foreign affairs and communications to India, and Article 370 was designed as the constitutional bridge for this limited accession. It provided that Parliament could legislate for the state only on those subjects, plus others with the concurrence of the state government, and that the President could extend other constitutional provisions to the state through orders. Though titled temporary, it endured for 70 years, underpinning the state’s distinct constitutional position.

What special status meant in practice

Under Article 370 and its companion Article 35A, Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution and flag, and the state’s residents enjoyed special rights over property and employment. Central laws did not automatically apply; each required a presidential order with the state government’s concurrence. Over the decades, a series of such orders steadily extended most of the Constitution to the state, eroding the original autonomy, but the symbolic and legal distinctiveness remained. The state also retained residuary powers of legislation, unlike other states where residuary powers rest with the Union, a marker of how distinct its position was. The provision was central to Kashmiri political identity and to Pakistan’s diplomatic position on the dispute.

How the revocation was done

On 5 August 2019, the government moved with striking speed. A presidential order superseded the 1954 order that had operationalised Article 370, effectively neutralising it, and a resolution in Parliament recommended its abrogation. Simultaneously, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, with a legislature, and Ladakh, without one. The moves were executed while the state was under President’s Rule and its mainstream political leadership was detained, with a communications blackout and heavy security deployment across the Valley.

The government’s case

The government argued that Article 370 had fostered separatism, corruption and underdevelopment, and that its removal would integrate the region fully into India, extend central laws and welfare schemes to its residents, and enable investment and development. Supporters pointed to subsequent developments: the extension of central legislation, panchayat and municipal elections, and a decline in organised militancy and stone-pelting incidents. Officials also argued that the special status had benefited a narrow political elite while ordinary residents missed out on national welfare schemes and reservation benefits. The move was presented as correcting a historical anomaly and fulfilling a decades-old political commitment.

The criticism and the legal battle

Critics called the revocation a unilateral rewriting of the constitutional compact without the consent of the state’s people, executed through detentions and a communications shutdown. Legal challenges argued that Article 370 had acquired permanence and could not be abrogated without the state constituent assembly’s recommendation, a body that ceased to exist in 1957. In December 2023, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the abrogation, holding that Article 370 was a temporary provision and that the state had no internal sovereignty, while directing that statehood be restored and elections held.

FAQs

What was Article 35A? A provision, added by presidential order in 1954, empowering the state legislature to define permanent residents and their special rights; it lapsed with Article 370’s abrogation.

Did the Supreme Court approve the move? Yes. In December 2023 the Court upheld the abrogation while ordering restoration of statehood and assembly elections.

What is the current status of Jammu and Kashmir? It is a Union Territory with a legislature; assembly elections were held in 2024, and the elected government has since pressed for restoration of full statehood.

Article 370’s rise and fall compresses the entire Kashmir question into a single constitutional provision: accession, autonomy, integration and the unresolved tension between them.

The region’s future will be shaped less by constitutional text now than by politics, development and reconciliation.

Compiled by the Khabar 24h Editorial Desk from publicly available sources.