assignment on article 370

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

India’s Kashmir Conundrum: Before and After the Abrogation of Article 370

Wednesday, August 5, 2020 / By: Sameer P. Lalwani, Ph.D. ;  Gillian Gayner

Publication Type: Special Report

On August 5, 2019, the government of India revoked the constitutional autonomy of its Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. This report—based on field interviews, new data collection, and extensive research— focuses on the revitalized insurgency and mass uprising between 2013 and 2019, explains how the Kashmir conflict evolved to a point that contributed to India’s extraordinary political gambit, and lays out both New Delhi’s strategy and the challenges the government faces going forward.

• Since 2013, mass resistance and armed insurgency have returned and grown in India’s Kashmir Valley, partly in response to the government’s failed strategy.
• Resistance has involved mass participation in “quasi-violence” that involves semi-organized pressure by unarmed civilians to provoke, frustrate, and impose costs on the state.
• New data on quasi-violence in the Kashmir Valley reveal substantial growth since 2013, at times even outpacing armed insurgency.
• New Delhi’s strategy fixated on kinetically degrading militant organizations to improve security, which fed local militant recruitment and depressed faith in democratic institutions.
• The government’s dramatic revocation of autonomy provisions for Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 minimized international penalties and preempted significant violent responses. Whether it replicates past political engineering or pursues revolutionary demographic engineering, the state is likely to face a resurgence of violent and quasi-violent resistance.
• U.S. influence is limited, but U.S. policymakers could encourage dialogue with all stakeholders and alert New Delhi to the challenges that Indian choices will pose for cooperation if it is indefinitely bogged down in Kashmir.

About the Report

This report focuses on India’s Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of its revoked autonomy in early August 2019, how the evolving nature of the Kashmir conflict contributed to such a political gambit, and where the situation is headed. Supported by the Asia Center at the United States Institute of Peace, this report is based on extensive research, new data collection, and field interviews in the Kashmir Valley between 2012 and 2017.

About the Authors

Sameer P. Lalwani is a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center, where he researches nuclear deterrence, interstate rivalry, crisis behavior, and counter/insurgency. Gillian Gayner was previously a research associate at the Stimson Center.

Related Publications

What’s Driving India-China Tensions?

Monday, March 25, 2024

By: Dean Cheng ;   Sameer P. Lalwani, Ph.D. ;   Daniel Markey, Ph.D. ;   Nilanthi Samaranayake

Since deadly clashes between India and China on their 2,100-mile disputed border — known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC) — nearly four years ago, the two countries have remained in a standoff and amassed an increasing number of troops on either side of the LAC. While India and China have held regular exchanges at the corps commander level since 2020, each side has also continued to militarize and invest in infrastructure in the high-altitude border regions, which may exacerbate risks of clashes or escalation. India-China competition has also deepened beyond the land border, particularly in the Indian Ocean region.

Type: Question and Answer

Global Policy

Sameer Lalwani on INDUS-X and the Importance of Technology Coalitions

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

By: Sameer P. Lalwani, Ph.D.

Technology partnerships like the U.S.-India INDUS-X “are going to be critical to the U.S. being able to defend and deter rising threats in the future, including the challenge of China,” says USIP’s Sameer Lalwani. “We need the strength of our allies in these coalitions” to maintain a technological advantage.

Type: Podcast

The Limitations of India and Russia’s Transactional Relationship

Thursday, February 22, 2024

By: Dr. Jagannath Panda

Since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it might seem as though ties between India and Russia have strengthened. While much of the West isolated Russia, India-Russia energy trade spiked, and India made efforts to accommodate Russia on the world stage. The two countries have also had visible public exchanges, such as a mid-January phone call between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s trip to Moscow at the end of 2023.

Type: Analysis

As Fragile Kashmir Cease-Fire Turns Three, Here’s How to Keep it Alive

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

By: Christopher Clary

At midnight on the night of February 24-25, 2021, India and Pakistan reinstated a cease-fire that covered their security forces operating “along the Line of Control (LOC) and all other sectors” in Kashmir, the disputed territory that has been at the center of the India-Pakistan conflict since 1947. While the third anniversary of that agreement is a notable landmark in the history of India-Pakistan cease-fires, the 2021 cease-fire is fragile and needs bolstering to be maintained.

Home > Cases > Challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370 > Abrogation of Article 370 | Judgement Summary

Abrogation of Article 370 | Judgement Summary

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI , S.K. Kaul J , Sanjiv Khanna J , B.R. Gavai J , Surya Kant J

Gauri Kashyap and R. Sai Spandana | 11th Dec 2023

• Live Streaming of Constitution Bench Judgement Pronouncement - 11 December 2023

On 11 December 2023, five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court upheld the Union government’s action to abrogate Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The Court further refused to comment on the constitutionality of the reorganisation of J&K state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on behalf of himself, Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, wrote 352 pages of the 476 page judgement. Justice S.K. Kaul wrote 121 pages and Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote a concurring judgement of three pages.

Article 370 of the Constitution  of India provided the State of Jammu and Kashmir with a special constitutional status. The provision substantially limited Parliament’s power to legislate for the State compared to other states.

On August 5, 2019, the Union government diluted Article 370, revoking Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. First, President Ram Nath Kovind issued  presidential order CO 272 . This Order allowed the Union to amend Article 370 without the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly.

Since J&K was under President’s Rule at the time, the powers of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly were vested in the Union Parliament. So, a few hours after CO 272 was issued, the Rajya Sabha recommended the abrogation of Article 370 through a  Statutory Resolution  under Article 370(3).

On August 6, 2019, President Kovind issued a Proclamation,  CO 273 , putting the Rajya Sabha’s recommendation into effect. All clauses of Article 370 ceased to operate, except Clause 1 which was amended to state that the Constitution of India applies wholly to the State, removing the special status awarded to Jammu and Kashmir.

On August 9, Parliament passed the  Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 . This Act bifurcated the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories—J&K and Ladakh.

Petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the dilution of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the State into two Union Territories.

On August 28, 2019, a 3-Judge Bench led by former CJI  Rajan Gogoi  referred the case to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench.

On October 1, 2019, 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Court comprising Justice  N.V. Ramana ,  S.K. Kaul ,  R. Subhash Reddy ,  B.R. Gavai  and  Surya Kant  decided to hear the case from November 14th, 2013. The petitioners sought the case to be placed before a larger Bench. On March 2nd, 2020, the Bench refused to refer it to a larger Bench.

On July 3, 2023, the Supreme Court listed the matter to a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The Bench assembled on July 11, 2023 and decided to hear the challenge from August 2, 2023.

Jammu and Kashmir did not retain sovereignty

CJI Chandrachud relied strongly on a proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh’s on 25 November 1949, the day before India’s Constitution was adopted. The proclamation stated that the provisions of the Indian Constitution would govern the relationship between the J&K and India. This, the Chief noted, negated two clauses of the Instrument of Accession (IoA). Paragraph 7 of the IoA stated that the IoA was not a symbol of acceptance of “any future Constitution of India” and Paragraph 8 stated that the IoA would not affect the sovereignty of the Maharaja. 

The Yuvraj’s proclamation said that “the provisions of the said Constitution shall, as from the date of its commencement, supersede and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith which are at present in force in this State.” 

Further, CJI Chandrachud wrote that there is much evidence in Article 370 and the J&K Constitution to show that a merger agreement was not necessary for Kashmir to surrender its sovereignty. Article 370(1) applied Article 1 of the Constitution (where J&K was listed as a Part III State) with no modifications. Section 3 of the J&K Constitution explicitly states that “the State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.” Section 147 prohibited any amendments to Section 3, further making the provision absolute. Therefore, the Constitution of India, he said, “became the supreme governing document of the land.” Further, the Preamble to the J&K Constitution shows a “clear absence of…a reference to sovereignty.” 

The Chief also disagreed with the petitioners’ argument that the autonomy enjoyed by J&K was distinct from other states. In asymmetric federalism, one state may enjoy a greater degree of autonomy than another. This does not mean that it has a different kind of autonomy. He warned that if the Court held that J&K enjoys an elevated kind of sovereignty, it would mean that “other states which had special arrangements with the Union also possessed sovereignty.”

Justice Kaul differed on the question of sovereignty. He held that as per the Court’s decision in Prem Nath Kaul v Union of India (1959) , J&K had retained some part of its sovereignty. Article 370, he said, recognised J&K’s internal sovereignty by recognising the Constituent Assembly of the state. 

Justice Khanna concurred with Justice Kaul’s reasoning. 

Article 370 is a temporary provision

First, the Chief relied on the fact that the Constitution framers placed Article 370 with the temporary and transitional provisions contained in Part XXI. Then, he pointed out that the IoA made it “abundantly clear” that Article 1 which stated that “India that is Bharat shall be a Union of States” applied in its entirety to J&K. When the Constitution was adopted on 26 January 1950, J&K was a Part B State. CJI Chandrachud wrote that with the introduction of the Seventh Schedule, the distinction between Part A, B and C states was obliterated, making J&K an integral part of India. 

Petitioners had also argued that Article 370 was only temporary while the Constituent Assembly of J&K existed. As the members chose to retain the provision, it transcended to permanency, with the only authority that could have abrogated it having dissolved. CJI Chandrachud held that the words “recommendation of the Constituent Assembly…shall be necessary” should be read with the historical context in mind, as it indicates that this was merely a “ratification process as decided by the Ministry of States.” The recommendation, he said, is not binding on the President. 

Further, the Chief held that the provision was introduced to “deal with the special circumstances in the State.” At the time of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, these special circumstances persisted, requiring the continuation of Article 370. 

The Chief Justice also held that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly could not limit the powers of the President to abrogate Article 370. The President’s power, he explained, was only limited under Article 370(1), which meant that they could not “make radical changes to the provisions of the Constitution of India as it applies to Jammu and Kashmir.” If the President exercises his power under 370(3) to abrogate the provision, no such limitation under 370(1) would survive, all provisions of the Constitution of India would apply to J&K, and integration would be complete. “Holding that the power under Article 370(3) cannot be exercised after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly would lead to freezing of the integration contrary to the purpose of introducing the provision,” CJI Chandrachud wrote. 

Justice Kaul agreed, citing that “Article 370’s historical context, its text, and its subsequent practice” indicates its temporary nature. The President’s power can be exercised post-dissolution “in line with the aim of full integration of the State,” he wrote. 

Constitutional validity of proclamations under President’s Rule

CJI Chandrachud first clarified that the Court would not deal with the President’s powers to invoke President’s Rule under Article 356, as the core challenge pertained to “actions taken during the subsistence of President’s Rule and not independently to President’s Rule by itself.” He then dealt with the petitioners’ claim that the President cannot use their powers under Article 356 to “take irrevocable decisions” and “unsettle constitutional safeguards in favour of States.” 

First, the Chief Justice relied on Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy’s decision in S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994), where he held that when President’s Rule is imposed, it was a “necessary consequence” that the government is removed, to avoid simultaneous governance by the Union and state governments. The federal structure then becomes “diluted because the Union is empowered to take over the executive and legislative powers of the State.” Keeping in mind the intent of Article 356, which is to “restore the functioning of the constitutional machinery in the state,” actions taken by the President during the proclamation should be “geared” towards fulfilling this objective. CJI Chandrachud, wrote that “it will be too stringent an approach to suggest that every action of the President and Parliament must be necessary to further the objects of the proclamation.”

Further, the Chief stated that there are “hundreds if not thousands” of decisions that the President and Parliament must take, on behalf of the state legislature, to ensure effective day-to-day functioning in the state. Every such action, he held, cannot be open to judicial review, as it would “lead to chaos and uncertainty” and “put the administration in the State at a standstill.”

Any action taken in the exercise of this power, he said, can be repealed or modified by the state legislature after it resumes its functioning. Under Article 357(2) “federating units would have the power to reverse or modify the changes which were brought by the Union during the subsistence of the Proclamation.” 

Holding that judicial review is only applicable to actions taken after President’s Rule has been proclaimed, the Chief laid down a standard to assess the grounds for such review. First, the “exercise of power by the President under Article 356 must have a reasonable nexus to the object of the Proclamation.” Second, such an exercise of power will not be considered to be invalid “merely on the ground of ‘irreversibility’ of the actions.” Third, in the challenge to an action taken under President’s Rule, the onus lies on the petitioners to establish that a prima facie assessment of the case shows a “mala fide or extraneous exercise of power.” 

If a case of mala fide is made on a preliminary assessment, the onus then falls on the Union to prove that a reasonable nexus exists between the action taken and the goal of proclaiming President’s Rule. Finally, the President’s exercise of power for the day-to-day administration of the state is “not ordinarily subject to judicial review.”

Justice Kaul concurred, stating that the President has the power to make “irreversible changes, including the dissolution of the State Assembly.” He noted that the President’s powers are kept in check by “judicial and constitutional scrutiny.”

Does Parliament enjoy both law-making and non-law-making powers of the state legislature under President’s Rule?

Article 356(1)(a) states that the President may declare that the “powers of the Legislature of the State” shall be exercised by or under the authority of Parliament. Petitioners had suggested that there is a difference between “law-making and non-law-making powers” of the state legislature, arguing that only legislative and not constituent power is transferred to Parliament under President’s Rule. 

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud held that no such distinction exists under Article 356. He noted that interpreting the phrase “powers of the legislature” to allow Parliament to exercise all constitutional powers of the Legislative Assembly would limit the power of the state. “However,” he continued, “the Constitution recognises such reduction of federal power when the Proclamation under Article 356 is in force.” 

Is CO 272 of 2019 valid?

Next, the Chief considered the validity of the process by which Article 370 was abrogated. The Union abrogated the provision through two Constitutional Orders (COs) CO 272 and 273 . 

In CO 272, the Union amended Article 367 (an interpretation clause) by replacing the words “Constituent Assembly” in the proviso to Article 370(3) with “Legislative Assembly.” The Union had asserted that this method was valid under Article 370(1)(d) which allows for provisions of the Indian Constitution to apply to J&K, subject to exceptions and modifications by the President.

This, the Chief held, was invalid and unconstitutional. The reason was twofold. First, an amendment to Article 370 could only be made under the process prescribed by Article 370(3) and not through an amendment to an interpretation clause of the Constitution. Second, the “concurrence” of the state government was a necessary component under Article 370(1)(d). 

Previously, in Maqbool Damnoo v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1972), a similar route was taken by the Union to replace the phrase “Sadar-i-Riyaasat” in Article 370 with the word “Governor” by amending Article 367. The majority held that it was not an amendment to Article 370 but rather a clarification to reflect the state of affairs at the time. Similarly in certain other COs where changes were made to Article 370 using the Article 367 route, they did not modify the essence of the Article in a “manner that is appreciable or significant.” Therefore, the Union could not use these examples to claim that CO 272 was valid. 

With CO 272, the Court said, it was clear that “while the change sought to be made by paragraph 2 of CO 272 may appear to be a modification or amendment of Article 367 at first blush, its effect is to amend Article 370 itself.” 

However, the Chief went on to hold that this did not render CO 272 as a whole as unconstitutional because the President had the power under Article 370(1)(d) to make “all or part of the Constitution” applicable to J&K. Petitioners had argued that 370(1)(d) “only contemplates a piece-meal approach” and that the entire Constitution can only be applied by exercising the power under Article 370(3), by abrogating Article 370. The Court held that applying all the provisions of the Constitution of India to J&K under 370(1)(d) had the “same effect” as declaring that Article 370 ceases to exist using the power under 370(3). 

Further, the consultation of the state government was not essential under 370(3) as the President had “unilateral” power to declare that Article 370 ceased to exist. In other words, the President was not mala fide in issuing CO 272. To show that it was mala fide, the Court said, “it is necessary to show that the power was exercised with an intent to deceive.” Deception can “only be proved if the power which is otherwise unavailable to the authority or body is exercised” or if the available power is “improperly exercised.” Since concurrence under 370(3) was not necessary in the first place to apply the whole Constitution to J&K, there was no improper exercise of powers when the President took the concurrence of the Union of India (on behalf of the State Government). 

Therefore, the Court held that CO 272 is valid to the extent that it applies all the provisions of the Constitution of India to J&K.

Justice Kaul , in his concurring opinion, agreed that it was not permissible to use the interpretation clause (Article 367) to amend Article 370. Therefore, he also held that paragraph 2 of CO 272 was invalid to the extent that it modified Article 367 to effectively amend Article 370. However, since the President had powers to apply the whole of the Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1)(d), the rest of CO 272 was valid and constitutional. 

CO 273 was not issued with malicious intent

In CO 273, the President exercising powers under Article 370(3) declared that “…all clauses of the said Article 370 shall cease to be operative….”

CJI Chandrachud wrote that while deciding if the power under 370(3) must be exercised, the President has to determine whether “the special circumstances which warranted a special solution in the form of Article 370 have ceased to exist.” This was a “policy decision which completely falls within the realm of the executive.” However, the Chief wrote that the President’s decision was subject to review if his intention was mala fide . 

The Chief found that the President’s intention was not mala fide. The reasoning he advanced was that the Union and the state have integrated “through a collaborative exercise” through a “slew” of Constitutional Orders since 1950. The President made the whole of the Indian Constitution applicable to J&K under Article 370(1)(d) to ensure its complete integration into India. 

The Constitution of J&K stands inoperative

The Bench held that the Constitution of J&K was always subordinate to the Constitution of India. The effect of CO 272 and 273, CJI Chandrachud wrote, was that the whole of the Constitution of India applied to J&K just as it did to other states and Union Territories. 

Under the Constitution of J&K, only certain provisions of the Indian Constitution applied to J&K. “The implicit but necessary consequence of the application of the Constitution of India in its entirety to the State of Jammu and Kashmir is that the Constitution of the State is inoperative,” the Chief wrote. 

Reorganisation of J&K: procedurally valid, substantive question left open

The J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 was enacted by Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution. During the hearing, the petitioners contended that the Act was unconstitutional for two main reasons. First, it was enacted without fulfilling the prerequisites of Article 3. Second, it changed the character of a state entirely by “reducing” it to two Union Territories. To determine the scope of Article 3, the Court delved into the history of states and union territories, the need for union territories and the reason for introducing Article 3.

The Chief wrote that states and “constituent units” at the time of independence mirrored the systems of bifurcations that existed during the British rule. Article 3, he said, was drafted to “subserve an arrangement in place until a reclassification which was suited to the needs of the local populace and which was based on a careful evaluation of administrative, cultural, linguistic, financial, and other relevant considerations rather than on the expediency of the colonial government.” 

Federalism which comprises two units of Union and state, he said, was part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. States are not dependent on the Union for their autonomy. However, Union Territories are not ‘viable administrative units’ and do not have the means to sustain on their own. They also do not have the degree of autonomy that states do. 

CJI Chandrachud discussed the difference between extinguishing a state and the character of a state. Under Article 3, new states can be formed by the separation of territory from any state, by uniting two or more states or parts of states, by uniting any territory to a part of any state or by increasing the area of any state, by diminishing the area of any state, altering the boundaries of any state, or altering the name of any state. However, an administrative unit could lose its “character” if it is converted to a Union Territory without retaining any part of its statehood. 

In the present matter, the majority held that there was no need to go into the question of whether or not J&K lost its “character” because of the reorganisation into two Union Territories. The judges relied on the submission of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who had told the Court that J&K’s statehood would be restored in due time and this would not impact the Union Territory of Ladakh. Therefore, they left the question of determining the contours of Article 3 open to be determined in a different case where the question emerges. 

Justice Kaul agreed with the Chief’s reasoning. 

On the procedure under which the Reorganisation Act was introduced, the Bench held that under Article 3, the Union ought to have sent the proposal to the state legislature for their views. Since the Union Parliament had assumed the role of the state legislature of J&K at the time, the Union sought the views of both houses of Parliament which agreed with the Reorganisation Bill. The question to consider was whether the Union accepting its own views was valid. To answer this question, the Chief held that it was necessary to test if the Union was acting mala fide. As established before, there was no malicious intention on the part of the Parliament as its powers under Article 356 were not limited to law-making powers. It could give consent to the reorganisation of the state. 

Next, the second proviso to Article 3 provided that when it comes to altering J&K, the consent of the state legislature must be sought. However, with CO 272, the entire Constitution applied to J&K without exceptions and modifications. Thus, “the issue of whether the second proviso to Article 3 could have been suspended in the exercise of the power under Article 356(1)(c) no longer survives” the Chief held.

The Court directed that J&K’s statehood be restored as soon as possible. They also noted that the legislative assembly elections of J&K need not await the restoration of statehood, and issued a direction to conduct elections before 30 September 2024. 

Justice Kaul: Set up a truth and reconciliation commission to address human rights violations in J&K

In the concluding pages of his judgement, Justice Kaul penned an emotional epilogue. He recommended that the Union set up a “truth and reconciliation Commission” just like South Africa did in its post-apartheid era. “This Commission should be set up expediently before memory escapes. The exercise should be time-bound. There is already an entire generation of youth that has grown up with feelings of distrust and it is to them that we owe the greatest duty of reparation,” he wrote. 

He acknowledged that to ask the Union to set up the Commission was beyond the scope of the Court. However, he reasoned that transitional justice was a facet of transformative constitutionalism and “encompassed responsibility of both State and non-State actors concerning human rights violations.” The Court, he said, had previously taken steps in cases such as Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) to provide flexible solutions to fundamental rights violations. 

He cautioned that the Commission must not turn into a criminal court. Rather, he recommended that the Commission “follow a humanised and personalised process enabling people to share what they have been through uninhibitedly.” 

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Mumbai News
• Chandigarh News
• Bangalore News
• Lucknow News
• Ahmedabad News
• Chennai News

On argument of Article 370 ‘permanence’, Supreme Court asks: How were amendments made

A five-judge constitution bench presided by chief justice of india d y chandrachud also said that “judicial review” of the centre’s action “will be confined to a constitutional violation...” and cannot be about the wisdom of the decision..

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the argument that Article 370 had become permanent after the constituent assembly for Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist in 1957 is belied by the practice of issuing Constitution (Application) Orders from time to time, modifying the Constitution in relation to the erstwhile state.

A five-judge Constitution Bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud also said that “judicial review” of the Centre’s action “will be confined to a constitutional violation…” and cannot be about the wisdom of the decision.

“If Article 370 works itself out and achieves its purpose once the constituent assembly for the state of Jammu and Kashmir has completed its task, then where was the occasion thereafter to issue constitutional orders post-1957,” asked the CJI while hearing petitions challenging the changes made to Article 370. “We are talking of practice of 64 years,” he said.

The CJI’s comment came after senior advocate Dushayant Dave appearing for the petitioners told the Bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, that Article 370(3), which was a temporary provision in terms of its object to start with, had subsequently acquired a permanent character.

Dave explained that the orders were only for the purpose of clause 1 of Article 370 to extend many amendments from time to time , “because there were many provisions of the Constitution which could not have been made applicable or many laws which may not have been applicable”.

The CJI then referred to proviso (d) of clause 1 which says that matters that are referable to the Instrument of Accession require only consultation with the state government while all other provisions require concurrence. He also pointed out that clause 2 of Article 370 says that if the concurrence is given before the constituent assembly has given its opinion, then it has to be placed before the constituent assembly for its opinion and concurrence.

“Your whole argument is Article 370 has worked itself out once the constituent assembly completes its task. But that would be belied at the least by Constitutional practice because even after 1957 there were orders which were issued… Therefore it would not be correct to postulate that Article 370 achieved its life (and) what is a temporary provision really assumes a state of permanence in the Indian Constitutional fabric,” the CJI said.

Dave said it only refers to those decisions which were taken prior to the coming into existence of the constituent assembly. “To that limited extent the constituent assembly’s approval was sought for,” he said.

The CJI however asked, “But then where is the power to alter the Constitution at all? If your argument is right, then once the constituent assembly in 1957 takes a decision, there is no power to change any provision of the Constitution in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Dave replied that Article 370(3) is only in respect of continuation of 370 or not. “Once the constituent assembly agrees that it should be continued, it becomes some sort of a permanent decision.”

The CJI, however, said “there is one internal inconsistency in accepting” Dave’s submission. “Because if it is right, quay the proviso to clause 3, then the consequence would be that once the constituent assembly completed its task in 1957, there could be no amendment to the Constitution at all under 370(2), which is belied not merely by Constitutional practice but the acceptance by both the state of J&K and GoI that amendments were being made by the Constitution even after 1957 and until the disputed amendment of 2019”.

Dave sought to underline that the concurrence was “limited” to actions taken before the constituent assembly was convened. “But then would the power of the state government to grant its concurrence under the second proviso to clause (d) continue to operate once the constituent assembly completed its task in 1957? Or would that power be exhausted…,” the CJI further asked.

Dave said “they have applied all provisions of the Constitution by 1954. So really speaking, there is nothing left to be done… 370 is fully in operation now”.

“You are right logically. But then how do you explain that there were subsequent amendments to the Constitution by the Constitution Orders,” the CJI persisted with his query to which Dave said “a wrong practice” cannot lead to rewriting of the provision. The senior counsel was apparently referring to the amendments being carried out by way of Constitution orders.

Dave asked whether in that case, the provision can be repealed. He said “it means that 370(3) can’t be repealed” and must be continued.

The CJI told Dave that “there has to be a logical consistency between how you interpret” the various clauses of Article 370. “It has to be in tandem. Either everything remains or everything perishes together”.

The SC also asked Dave whether he is inviting the court to review the wisdom of the decision of the government on the abrogation of Article 370. “You are saying that judicial review should reassess the basis of the government decision that it was not in national interest to continue with Article 370,” said the CJI, adding “judicial review will be confined to a Constitutional violation… there is no doubt that if there is a constitutional violation, this court has jurisdiction to review.”

The hearing will resume on August 22.

Tavleen Singh writes: Corruption as an election issue Subscriber Only

How AI could make smartphones great again Subscriber Only

Markets touch new high, but the shadow of war looms Subscriber Only

Why Paris-bound Indian shuttlers should happily shoot insta reels Subscriber Only

Spring flavours: A taste of regional new years Subscriber Only

The art of reality: A look at Gobardhan Ash Subscriber Only

Imtiaz Ali on collaborating with Diljit Dosanjh Subscriber Only

Latest fiction and non-fiction books to read Subscriber Only

Ramachandra Guha on author-editor chemistry Subscriber Only

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

• Abrogation of Article 370
• Jammu and Kashmir

Virat Kohli continues to lead the race for the Orange Cap in IPL 2024, with a quickfire 42 off 20 balls against Sunrisers Hyderabad. Heinrich Klaasen and Travis Head also entered the top 10, with Rohit Sharma joining the race after scoring 105* off 63 balls.

• Chess Candidates 2024 Live Updates: Gukesh vs Ian Nepo ends in a draw; Vidit vs Pragg drawn as well 23 mins ago
• Mumbai News Live Updates: 2 arrested for firing outside Salman Khan's residence in Mumbai 1 hour ago
• Delhi News Live Updates: DU ready for 'saffronisation' if it means serving the country, says Vice Chancellor 11 hours ago
• JEE Main 2024 Live Updates: NTA paper 1 final answer key link to be out soon, check latest updates 13 hours ago

Best of Express

Buzzing Now

Apr 16: Latest News

• 01 Maharashtra records 5-fold drop in heatstroke cases this year
• 02 IPL online betting racket busted, 10 arrested
• 03 IPL 2024 Points Table: Sunrisers Hyderabad retain 4th spot, Royal Challengers Bengaluru plummet to 10th after RCB vs SRH
• 04 IPL 2024 Orange Cap: Virat Kohli extends lead while Travis Head enters Top 10 with century after RCB vs SRH
• 05 IPL 2024 Purple Cap: Pat Cummins enters race with 3 wickets after RCB vs SRH
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories
• Expresso Live
• Premium Stories
• Express Shorts
• Health & Wellness
• Board Exam Results

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Article 370 Essay

Essay on Article 370

Through this essay on Article 370, one will learn how Article 370 of the Indian Constitution gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, which is located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. This state has been administered by India since 1954.

The Article is drafted in part XXI of the Constitution which is titled as "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions". The Article 370 essay in English will give a clear overview of what actually Article 370 is?

A Long Essay on Article 370 in English

The Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir after being established, has been given the power to recommend which Articles of the Indian Constitution can be applied in the state and also to cancel the 370 altogether. After being advised by the State Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, a Presidential order was issued in 1954 that specified the Articles which will be applied to the state. Through this Article 370 essay, one will learn how the Constituent Assembly didn't recommend cancellation of Article 370 before it got dissolved. As a result, the Article was deemed to become a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution.

Different Laws And Rights

The Article 370 in English essay explains how Article 370  was incorporated to keep the residents of Jammu and Kashmir under a Law that is different from the rest of the Country. The different Laws include those relating to citizenship Rights, ownership of property Rights, and different fundamental Rights. Due to these separate Laws, Indians from other states were forbidden to buy any land or property in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

While the Indian Government was planning out the Constitution of India, they requested the advice of each and every state on the number of constitutions to be incorporated. All the states agreed to have one Constitution in spite of having one for each state except the state assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. The state assembly of Jammu and Kashmir requested that only those Articles of the Constitution will be applied in the state that corresponds to the original instrument to accession and other rules will be incorporated by the state assembly after being formed. But the state assembly got dissolved, and the Article was considered as a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution. This was confirmed by various rulings of India such as the Supreme Court and High Court.

The essay on Article 370 can help one understand the four Provisions of Article 370:

The state was exempted from the complete applicability of the Constitution of India. The state has the power to form its own Constitution.

The power of the central government in this state is limited to three subjects: defense, foreign affairs, and communications.

Some central government’s constitutional power can be extended to the state only with the concurrence of the state government.

The State Government's power to give concurrence is only active until the State Constituent Assembly was convened. After the scheme of powers is dispersed by the State Constituent Assembly, no further extension of powers is possible.

As studied in the Article 370 essay, it is clear that the state of Jammu and Kashmir has a special status and can incorporate its own Constitution, no other states in the Country have these powers.

Impact On Abolition Of Article 370

With the elimination of Article 370 in 2019, people of J&K will no longer have dual citizenship and would be treated similarly to other Indian citizens. Because the citizenship clause is no longer in force, all of the additional benefits and grounds for discrimination associated with the title are effectively gone. 

One of the most significant advantages was that non-J&K residents were unable to purchase land within the state. As a result, persons living in J&K have plenty of resources that they haven't put to good use in order to have a safe place to live. Women were the worst victims of this equation, as they lost their land Rights if they married someone from outside the state. Furthermore, neither she nor her children were eligible to inherit the land. A Kashmiri man, on the other hand, was free to marry any lady from any state and preserve his property Rights. A non-resident of J&K was not permitted to vote in state legislature elections or to run for office. Non-J&K residents were unable to enrol in postgraduate professional courses since state universities in Jammu and Kashmir require a Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC). Furthermore, they were not eligible for any government help or scholarships to utilize while working for the government since permanent residence is necessary, which was not attainable at the time but is today. 

The state was not automatically rendered subject to any Laws passed by Parliament. As a result, disadvantaged populations in the state, such as SCs and STs, were denied the benefits that the Indian Constitution ordinarily provides. Even within the state, Rights such as the Right to education and the Right to information apply. More than that, the middle did not have the authority to declare a financial emergency within the state, but that is no longer the case; Kashmir now follows the same rules and regulations as the rest of the nation.

Short Essay on Article 370

150 words paragraph on article 370.

In this Article 370 short essay, one will gain some basic knowledge of Article 370. Article 370 was incorporated, especially for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This Article was formed along with Article 35a. The Article vested some important powers in the hands of the State Constituent Assembly. It restricted the Central Government from interfering with the matters of Jammu and Kashmir. One can gain a lot of knowledge from this essay on Article 370.

Article 370 gave the authority to the State Constituent Assembly to incorporate its own Constitution that will give the state several different Laws. Such separate Laws include citizenship Rights, ownership of land Rights, and many others. People from other states are restricted from buying land in this state.

In this short speech on Article 370 in English, it is clear that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is an important state of India and experiences a special status among all the other states.

The 370 Article essay in English will educate a person on how the instrument of accession affected the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh says that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is not compelled to accept any future Articles of the Constitution of India. The state assembly has the power to incorporate its own Constitution. The state assembly will also decide how much power should be vested in the hands of the Central Government. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was experiencing a special status because of the conflict that was prevailing on the land.The Article 370 paragraph in English explains the special status of the Jammu and Kashmir experiences.

FAQs on Article 370 Essay

1. What powers are vested by Article 370?

From the knowledge we have gained from the Article 370 essay, it is clear that the State Constituent Assembly has the power to make its own rules for the state without getting interfered with by the Central Government. The state government has the power to make separate laws in terms of citizenship, ownership of land, etc.

2. In what subjects the Central Government has power over Jammu and Kashmir?

The central Government has power on a total of three subjects that are defense, foreign affairs and communication according to an essay on Article 370. In spite of these three subjects, the central government is restricted to interfere because of the special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. If the state government extents some powers then the centre can interfere.

3. What is the background of Article 370?

When India was about to gain independence and the British were departing, they gave all of India's rulers the Right to reside anywhere they wanted. Internally, this resulted in the development of hundreds of provinces. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel's efforts resulted in all of those regions agreeing to merge to establish a country. However, one province, Jammu & Kashmir, governed by the then-king Hari Singh, was unwilling to join the union. They didn't want to be combined, and they wanted to keep their identity as a separate province. In October 1947, Pakistan attempted to capture Kashmir by invading it with its army. Hari Singh requested India's assistance in combating the Pakistani troops. India assisted on the condition that Kashmir joins India. Under Article 370 of the Indian constitution, India promised to provide it with special status.

4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of Article 370?

People in Jammu and Kashmir held dual citizenship, meaning they were citizens of both Jammu and Kashmir and India. They had a different flag than we had. In J & K, elections were held every six years. In J&K, criticising the Indian flag was not a crime. The Supreme Court of India's regulations were not applicable to J&K. A Kashmiri girl loses her Kashmiri citizenship if she marries a guy from outside the state. And if she married a Pakistani, he was automatically granted citizenship in J&K. The Right to Information Act did not apply to J&K. In J&K, there were no reservations for minorities. Outside of J&K, no one could acquire land there. J&K was exempt from financial emergencies. Kashmir has never had an issue with overcrowding or overpopulation since no one from outside the state may enter and reside there. Because employment possibilities were few in J&K, many young people turned to terrorism. There was a low GDP and a high level of corruption. China had acquired 10% of Kashmir after independence, whereas Pakistan had grabbed 30% of Kashmir. Only 60% of Kashmir is still in India's possession. Article 370 was enacted as a temporary measure, which allowed India to repeal it and eventually unite J&K with the rest of the states.

5. What is the end result of Article 370?

Article 370's revocation will have a favourable influence. It has the potential to help both the people of J&K and the rest of India. People in J&K will suddenly have a plethora of job options. A number of business opportunities will arise. Girls from J&K can now marry anyone in India. Their gross domestic product will rise. People from other states can now invest in J&K. They can establish manufacturing units, resulting in more work prospects for individuals in J&K. Foreign investors were also looking forward to the repeal of Article 370, therefore we should see an increase in FDI in J&K. Let us all wish for a strong, united, and prosperous India.

The New York Times

Asia pacific | what is article 370, and why does it matter in kashmir.

Advertisement

Asia Pacific

What is article 370, and why does it matter in kashmir.

By VINDU GOEL UPDATED Updated August 5, 2019

Disputed area

Kashmir, a mountainous valley that borders Pakistan and India, has been a center of conflict between the two nuclear-armed countries since the 1947 partition of British India.

At the time of the partition, the British agreed to divide their former colony into two countries: Pakistan, with a Muslim majority, and India, with a Hindu majority. Both nations covet Kashmir, which is Muslim majority, and occupy portions of it with military forces.

For decades, an uneasy stalemate has prevailed, broken by occasional military incursions, terrorist attacks and police crackdowns. But on Monday, the Indian government decided to permanently incorporate the territory it controls into the rest of India .

The administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, a 70-year-old provision that had given autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which includes the Hindu-majority area of Jammu and the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley.

The government also introduced a bill to strip the region of statehood and divide it into two parts, both under direct control of the central government.

But Mr. Modi, a Hindu nationalist, had campaigned for re-election in part by stoking patriotic fervor against Muslim-led Pakistan. He promised the full integration of Kashmir, a cause which his party has championed for decades, and now he is delivering on that pledge.

Pakistan condemned India’s moves. Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, called on President Trump to follow through on an offer he made two weeks ago to mediate the Kashmir dispute.

What are the roots of the conflict?

In 1947, the sudden separation of the area into Pakistan and India prompted millions of people to migrate between the two countries and led to religious violence that killed hundreds of thousands.

afghanistan

Gilgit-Baltistan

Controlled by Pakistan

line of control

Controlled by India

Suicide bombing

Jammu and Kashmir

Left undecided was the status of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state in the Himalayas that had been ruled by a local prince. Fighting quickly broke out, and both countries eventually sent in troops, with Pakistan occupying about one-third of the state and India two-thirds.

The prince signed an agreement for the territory to become part of India. Regional autonomy, which was formalized through Article 370, was a key inducement.

Despite efforts by the United Nations to mediate the Kashmir dispute, India and Pakistan continue to administer their portions of the former princely territory while hoping to get full control of it. Troops on both sides of the so-called “line of control” regularly fire volleys at each other.

Muslim militants have frequently resorted to violence to expel the Indian troops from the territory. Pakistan has backed many of those militants, as well as terrorists who have struck deep inside India — most brutally in a four-day killing spree in Mumbai in 2008, which left more than 160 people dead.

What is Article 370?

Article 370 was added to the Indian constitution shortly after the partition of British India to give autonomy to the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir until a decision was made about its rule. It limited the power of India's central government over the territory. A related provision gave state lawmakers the power to decide who could buy land and be a permanent resident -- a provision that irked many non-Kashmiris.

Although it was intended to be temporary, Article 370 says that it can only be abrogated with the consent of the legislative body that drafted the state constitution. That body dissolved itself in 1957, and India's Supreme Court ruled last year that Article 370 is therefore a permanent part of the constitution.

The Modi government disagrees and says the president of India, who is beholden to the ruling party, has the power to revoke the article.

Why did the conflict heat up this year?

The immediate cause was the Feb. 14 suicide bombing by a young Islamic militant, who blew up a convoy of trucks carrying paramilitary forces in Pulwama in southern Kashmir.

Indian aircraft responded to that attack by flying into Pakistan and firing airstrikes near the town of Balakot . The Indian government claimed it was attacking a training camp for Jaish-e-Mohammed, the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing.

The next day, Pakistani and Indian fighter jets engaged in a skirmish over Indian-controlled territory , and Pakistani forces downed an Indian aircraft — an aging Soviet-era MiG-21 — and captured its pilot. It was the first aerial clash between the rivals in five decades .

Pakistan quickly returned the pilot , easing the diplomatic tensions. But Mr. Modi exploited a wave of a nationalist fervor over the Pulwama attack as part of his re-election campaign that helped his Bharatiya Janata Party win a sweeping victory .

Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, was elected last year with the backing of his country’s powerful military, and he wants to show that he can stand up to India, even as his country’s economy is so weak that he sought bailouts from Saudi Arabia and China.

Will the United States and other global powers get involved?

On July 22, Mr. Trump hosted Mr. Khan at the White House. Although the meeting was focused on how to end the war in Afghanistan, Mr. Trump told reporters that Mr. Modi had asked him to help mediate the Kashmir dispute . Mr. Khan welcomed his involvement. The Indian government denied making any mediation request and has long insisted on direct negotiations with Pakistan to resolve the dispute.

Under Mr. Trump, American foreign policy has shifted away from Pakistan, a longtime recipient of American aid, toward India, which the administration views as a bulwark against China’s rising influence in Asia.

China, meanwhile, has become a close ally and financial patron of Pakistan . The Chinese government recently urged India and Pakistan to settle their conflicts through bilateral discussions. China shares a border with Jammu and Kashmir state, and India and China still do not agree on the demarcation line.

What is likely to happen next?

The constitutional changes, issued through a presidential order, could face legal challenges. Last year, India’s Supreme Court ruled that Article 370 could not be abrogated because the state-level body that would have to approve the change went out of existence in 1957.

“My view is that this presidential notification is illegal,” said Shubhankar Dam, a law professor at the University of Portsmouth in Britain and the author of a book on executive power in India. “The question is one of jurisdiction: Does the government of India have the power to do this?”

Pakistan, for its part, said it will “exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps” taken by India.

Mr. Modi’s moves to integrate Kashmir into India are likely to be popular in much of the country. But there is widespread panic in Kashmir, where there have been decades of protests against Indian rule.

More on NYTimes.com

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

'Kashmir and the abrogation of Article 370: Can peace be possible, or stalemate continue to hamper India and Pakistan's relations in the future?'

2019, FOCUS South Asia Democratic Forum SADF

India’s abrogation of Article 370 and 35 A in Kashmir has led to a series of developments that have changed the nature of relations between India and Pakistan. On 5th August India belligerently took over the disputed and autonomous region of Kashmir stripping off its autonomy by merging with the Union Territory. The legal fraternity in India called it extra constitutional, fraudulent and illegal barring the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly rather making it entirely dysfunctional and abrogating it all together. Experts believe that the move by the BJP Government as catastrophic. P Chidambaram, a senior leader in the opposition Congress Party described the decision as a "catastrophic step" and warned in parliament that it could have serious consequences. "You may think you have scored a victory, but you are wrong and history will prove you to be wrong. Future generations will realize what a grave mistake this house is making today." Second, in light of the above point and rele-vant sections the Jammu and Kashmir constitution (allegedly, as author reserves the right to disa-gree with any Indian laws), a central government (in blatant violation of the Instrument of Ac-cession (or Indian Constitution) cannot arbitrarily “downgrade” the status of the “State” to “Un-ion Territory”. This is a violation of the fundamental right of the state and its people. This act, without justification of any legal, economic or political grounds, alone attracts violation of the constitutional rights and invites judicial review of the Supreme Court. The President has only powers to amend or modify, not do away with it (as suggested by the Indian Supreme Court in Sampat Prakash vs State of J&K 1970). This article discusses the ramifications of the Indian move in Kashmir on India along with its impact on India- Pakistan relations. It also covers an international angle of the Kashmir dispute along with the role of United Nation as well as of the global powers responses to the tensions in Kashmir.

Related Papers

MOHD MUBARIQ MAHIRE

Shehzad Saeed

Diponegoro Law Review

Desi Nur Cahya Kusuma Putri

The dispute in Jammu and Kashmir has been tensed by the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution by the Indian government in the end of 2019. The existence of Kashmir has become one of matters as the main focus between India-Pakistan conflicts. People are under diverse senses of de facto and de jure martial law. Estimated from 1990, thereabouts 70,000 people have been killed, 8,000 people have been subjected to enforced disappearances, thousand of them also victims of repressive laws and Indian security forces humiliate the protestors and detainees frequently. The research is normative legal research by using statute approach and case approach through literature review. The research aims to discuss and analyze the implementation of the rights of self-determination pursuant to Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. The results of the study indicate all the disputes should be ended by giving the right to self-determination, which should be given to the people of Kashm...

Naeem Salik

Dr Ejaz Hussain, MA (Lund), PhD (Heidelberg), Postdoc (Berkeley)

Conflict and cooperation are ontologically two central components of human organisation. From the Paleolithic period to modern times, human beings as well as the nation-states fight and also cooperate with each other all the time. Realism essentialise the former while cooperative components are central to neo-liberalism. The post-World War European political and diplomatic experiences might serve as a point of departure here. Nevertheless, when it comes to politics and foreign policy in South Asia, the realist approach seems to have dominated the political, and indeed military, thinking in the region that witnessed many wars; four between India and Pakistan, not counting the multiple stand-offs, continuing warfare in Afghanistan, and the civil wars in Nepal and Sri Lanka. Among the above-mentioned cases, the India-Pakistan case has assumed regional and global attention. At the heart of India-Pakistan relations lies the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). This issue has been approached, documented and analysed from a variety of perspectives and actors ranging from academics to the UN experts have attempted to do so. Academically, the literature produced can broadly be termed as pro-India, pro-Pakistan and pro-Kashmir. The pro-India work is essentially integrationist which make a case to annex princely states, including J&K, with reference to Greater India-which was partitioned by the British. Kashmir is thus termed as "atoot ang" of "Akhand Bharat". In the view of pro-India studies, Kashmir was constitutionally an integral part of the Indian Union under Article 370-which was revoked by Modi-led BJP on August 5, and an election was held to substitute the 'promised' plebiscite which is enchanted by the pro-Pakistan literature. The latter regards J&K as the unfinished agenda of partition.

International journal of Research and Analytical Reviews

Tariq A Rather

The paper briefly analyses the integration of the state of Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian Union through the Instrument of Accession (1947) under the pretext of Article 370 of the Indian constitution. Article 370 provided a special position to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the quasi-federal-oriented polity of India as envisaged in its constitutional set up. It explores legal nature and character of the Article 370 within the Indian Constitution, and also highlights the true nature and meaning of autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian Union. The author tries to highlight how after seventy four years Indian govt. arbitrarily and unilaterally abrogated Article 370 without the consent of Jammu and Kashmir constituent Assembly/Elected Government. This paper also analyses social, economic and political implications of abrogation of Article 370. It further highlightsthe exploitative nature of Indian government which was once upon a time a defender of democratic values and means.

Race and Class

Re-visiting Article 370: the politics of autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir

ABDUL H A S E E B MIR , Dr.Javid Ahmad Ahanger

This paper revisits one of the significant provisions of Indian Constitution visa -vis Jammu and Kashmir-Article 370. In this article, an attempt has been made to draw upon the historical trajectories of the inclusion, dilution and finally revocation of the Article 370. It also study the issue related to this provision and its criticism in the political corridors of state. The paper focuses on its political significance then and now. It scrutinises the issue related to this provision and its criticism in the political corridors of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The paper further explores the political ramification on Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation.

Ashish Dubey

Kashmir is the oldest and the most serious dispute between Pakistan and India. Various efforts at the bilateral and multilateral levels could not resolve this problem. The two countries have fought hot and cold wars which undermined their bilateral relations. India's efforts to strengthen its control of Kashmir by use of force have always been questioned by Pakistan that supports Kashmiri demand for right self determination under the UN Resolution of 1948-49. This paper analysis the origins of the Kashmir dispute, its influence on Indo-Pakistan relations, and the prospects for its resolution.

Dr. Matthew Crosston

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• [email protected]
• https://t.me/iasgyanpdfs

• Daily News Analysis

ARTICLE 370

Copyright infringement not intended

Context: The constitutional validity of the revocation of Article 370, which gave special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir, is being examined by the Supreme Court. The petitioners challenging the decision have argued that Article 370 was not a "temporary provision" as it was often called, but a permanent feature of the Constitution that reflected the unique circumstances of the state's accession to India.

• Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is a part of the section called “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”. It deals with the special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been a disputed territory since the partition of India in 1947.
• According to Article 370(3), the President of India can declare that Article 370 is no longer valid or that it applies only with some changes and from a certain date. But before doing so, the President has to get the approval of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir , which was formed to draft the state’s constitution.
• But others disagree. They say that Article 370 is not temporary because it was meant to protect the autonomy and identity of Jammu and Kashmir, which had acceded to India under certain conditions. They also point out that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir dissolved itself in 1957 without recommending any change to Article 370.
• Article 370 was a special provision in the Indian Constitution that granted autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir . It was based on an agreement between the leaders of India and Jammu and Kashmir after India's independence.
• Article 370(3) stated that the President of India could declare that Article 370 would cease to be operative or operate only with some exceptions, but only with the consent of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. This was a body elected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir to draft their constitution.
• According to a lawyer who challenged the abrogation of Article 370 in the Supreme Court, this meant that Article 370 became a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution after 1957. He argued that since the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir no longer existed, no authority could give consent to change or remove Article 370.
• He claimed that Parliament had no power to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, as it did not have the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which was a condition laid down by Article 370(3).

Must-Read Articles:

ARTICLE 370: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/article-370-and-pakistan

STATUS OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/status-of-jammu-and-kashmir

J&K REORGANISATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2023: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/jk-reorganisation-amendment-bill-2023

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/as-art-370-hearings-begin-question-of-the-temporary-provision-8873824/

• About APTI PLUS
• Our Results
• Couselling at your college
• Daily Current Affairs
• IAS Gazette Magazine
• Daily Editorial
• Prelims Xpress

Help Centre

• Feedback/Suggestions
• Free Couselling Form
• Payment Methods

Legal Stuff

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Refund Policy
• Forgot Password?

Not a member yet? Sign-up Now!

Already a member? Sign-in Here!

Essay on Article 370 of Indian Constitution in English for Children

Table of Contents

Essay on Article 370 of Indian Constitution:

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution provided special rights to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. It gave most of the power to the government of this state. Centre was left with limited power over J&K.

Article 370 has recently been scrapped making it a historic event which is expected to change the face of the state for good. This move has received mixed reactions from political parties and general public though it has largely been appreciated.

Long and Short Essay on Article 370 of Indian Constitution in English

Here are long and short essay on Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of varying lengths to help you with the topic in your exams. These Article 370 essay are written in simple English language to easily convey the information, yet it does so effectively. These Article 370 essays will let you have a deeper understanding of article 370, its removal and repercussions.

After going through the following essays you will know about Article 370 and its provisions; history of Article 370; advantages and disadvantages of Article 370; how it revoked; what will be the consequences of scrapping Article 370; what bills passed for its revokal, etc.

Short Essay on Article 370 – (200 Words)

Article 370 that came into effect in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1949 was supposed to be a temporary provision; however, it continued for decades even though many political leaders and other prominent people in the county demanded its revocation from time to time.

The article exempted J&K from the Indian Constitution. The state attained the right to make its own laws related to any matter except foreign affairs, communications and defence.

The state government thus went on to draft a separate constitution. It also came up with a separate flag. The Fundamental Duties mentioned in the Indian Constitution were not applicable in J&K. It had its own set of rights and duties.

The condition of the state hasn’t been very good ever since the enforcement of Article 370. Life of people in the Kashmir region has especially been miserable. The place is prone to terrorist attacks.

Article 370 has been seen as a hindrance in the development of the state. It is also known to be a cause of growing corruption and terrorism in the state.

As per the constitutional order passed by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind on 5 th August 2019, Article 370 stands ineffective. The decision has been taken to improve the condition of J&K and its citizens.

Essay on Article 370: Enforcement – (300 Words)

Introduction.

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was drafted in Part XXI of the Constitution: Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions. However, soon after it came to be known as a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution. It has remained in effect in J&K for decades.

The Origin of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution

Article 370 was drafted by Sheikh Abdullah in the year 1947. Abdullah had been appointed as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir by Pundit Jawahar Lal Nehru and Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir.

Abdullah wanted complete autonomy for J&K and demanded that Article 370 must not remain a temporary provision. However, the Centre deemed this demand unreasonable and did not approve of it.

Special Status Given to Jammu and Kashmir

As Article 370 came into being, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir gained special power wherein it got the right to recommend the articles of the constitution that should be enforced on the state. It even got the power to annul Article 370 altogether.

Article 35 A and Article 370 together stated that a different set of laws apply for the residents of the state of J&K. The Indian Parliament could only exercise laws related to finance, defence, communications and foreign affairs in the state.

It required the approval of state government for applying all the other laws. The residents of J&K enjoyed completely different laws when it came to ownership of property, laws related to citizenship and fundamental rights.

As per the laws enforced by the state, the Indian citizens from other parts of the country were denied the right to purchase property in Jammu and Kashmir.

The residents of J&K fear that the scrapping of Article 370 may hamper their local business and thus be a threat to their livelihood. Adapting to the changes that are likely to follow this big decision also seems to be a cause of concern for the residents of J&K. Their concerns are genuine. We hope the condition of the place improves henceforth.

Essay on Article 370: Advantages and Disadvantages – (400 words)

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that gave special power to the state of Jammu and Kashmir was annulled on 5 th August 2019. The decision taken by the Centre has appreciated by several political parties, leaders, celebrities and majority of general public. However, many others have criticized it outright. Article 370 had few advantages and several disadvantages.

Advantages of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution

Here is a look at the advantages of Article 370:

1) Article 370 is advantageous for the citizens of J&K. The state gives priority to the interest of its local citizens. There is less competition in the state and greater opportunities for its citizens.

2) J&K boasts of its local handicraft items. The government of this state has kept its culture and local businesses alive. It has always encouraged local businesses over foreign brands.

This is the reason why several local brands are running in the state. This means more work, greater growth opportunities and good income for the locals.

Disadvantages of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution

Here is a look at the disadvantages of Article 370:

1) The state of J&K hasn’t developed as much as the other parts of the country. This is particularly true when we look at the medical facilities here. The condition of the hospitals and healthcare centres in the state are not that good.

2) The law and order in J&K is weak because the centre is not allowed to intervene. This has given rise to terrorism in the state. Terrorism is a major concern here and nothing much done to fight it.

3) Corruption in the state is high due to its alienation from the centre. There is no check on the government of J&K. It makes its own laws and works as per its convenience.

4) Article 370 prevented the implementation of Right to Education in the state. This is why students forced to move to other states.

5) Outsiders cannot establish business in J&K. Professionals and industrialists not allowed to settle here. This is a major hindrance in the growth and development of the state.

6) This provision is anti- women in nature. It has led to extreme gender bias in the state.

The disadvantages of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution clearly outweigh its advantages. The atmosphere of tension in the state is a clear evidence of the same. Scrapping of Article 370 seems like a ray of hope for the state that has gripped by terrorism since long. We hope it sees better times ahead.

Long Essay on Article 370 – (500 words)

Article 370 is a temporary provision in the Constitution of India. It provides special autonomous status to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The provisions of the Indian Constitution that are applicable to other states of India are not applicable to J&K.

The article adopted in November 1956 and was enforced in the state in January 1957 by Sheikh Abdullah.

Special Provisions in Jammu and Kashmir as per Article 370

Some special provisions made in Jammu and Kashmir as Article 370 came into force in the state. These include:

• J&K acquired different national flag.
• Insulting the national flag and national symbols considered a crime in India. It is a punishable offence. But this rule did not apply in J&K.
• The highest court orders in India did not apply in J&K.
• Jammu and Kashmir citizens enjoyed dual citizenship.
• Women in Kashmir had to abide by the Sharia law.
• The tenure of the Assembly of J&K was 6 years unlike other Indian states in which the Assembly tenure is 5 years.
• RTI, RTE and CAG were not applicable in Kashmir.
• The J&K citizenship of a woman who married a person from another Indian state ended. On the other hand, if a woman from the state married someone from Pakistan, he acquired J&K citizenship.
• If a Pakistani married a Kashmiri girl, he acquired Indian citizenship.
• Article 370 did not allow people from other states to purchase property in J&K.
• The minority group in Kashmir that consists of Hindus and Sikhs did not get 16% reservation.

Changes after the Revocation of Article 370

Now that Article 370 has revoked, Jammu and Kashmir will no longer enjoy the autonomous status. All the special powers that came with this article have annulled. Here are some of the other changes that brought about:

• All the residents of J&K shall be entitled to single citizenship only.
• Article 360 that is enforced during financial emergency is now applicable in J&K.
• People from other states shall be able to purchase property in J&K.
• Duration of Legislative Assembly has changed to 5 years.
• RTI will be applicable in J&K.
• Minorities will be eligible for 16% reservation.
• Children will benefit from the Right to Education.
• Directive Principle of State Policy shall be applicable.
• J&K will not have a separate flag.

The Atmosphere in J&K as Article 370 Revoked

J&K’s prominent leaders, Omar Abdullah, Sajjad Lone and Mehbooba Mufti were under house arrest as the bill for abolition of Article 370 was passed in the Rajya Sabha.

Internet and mobile services in Kashmir’s Srinagar district suspended and a ban imposed on all public gatherings.

With so many changes underway after the revocation of Article 370, it seems like J&K will finally experience peace and prosperity. This is just the first step towards the betterment of the state.

There are miles to go! Whether the decision taken by Centre is right or wrong still debated. We hope it proves to be beneficial for the state as well as the country as a whole.

Long Essay on Article 370: Revocation – (600 words)

Article 370 enforced by Sheikh Abdullah on 26 th January 1957. The article gave special power to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This was a temporary provision.

However, it remained in force for decades. Even though many political leaders and other prominent people in the country suggested its revocation from time to time, it remained intact; however, it has finally annulled.

Indian President, Ram Nath Kovind issued constitutional order to revoke Article 370 and apply all the rules and provisions of the Indian constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. This historic move made on 5 th August 2019.

Bill to Revoke Provisions of Article 370

Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, moved a resolution in Rajya Sabha to introduce a bill scrapping all the provisions of Article 370. This approved by President Ram Nath Kovind.

Shah also introduced bills seeking bifurcation of the State into Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory with an Assembly and Ladakh as a Union Territory without a legislature.

The opposition benches protested against this resolution; however, the decision has made. Revoking Article 370 of the Indian Constitution had a major part of BJP’s agenda. Shah’s announcement thus received with elation by the BJP leaders.

Mixed Reactions on Revocation of Article 370

While many political parties opposed the decision to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, several others extended their support to the BJP government.

Parties that Supported the Decision

Among those that showed support to this decision were the Aam Aadmi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Shiv Sena, AIADMK, Shiromani Akali Dal, YSR Congress, Telugu Desam Party, Biju Janata Dal, BPF and AGP. All these parties backed the Centre’s decision.

Many of them mentioned that they awaited this move since long and welcome the decision wholeheartedly. They now look forward to peace and development in J&K. The decision of scrapping Article 370 has been termed as bold and courageous.

BSP member, Satish Chandra Misra was among the first ones in the Rajya Sabha to support this move. Mayawati also extended support to the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir.

AIADMK mentioned that their leader, Jayalalithaa had always wanted this. Shiv Sena members expressed their joy and support by celebrating outside their party head office.

BJD members said that with this decision, Jammu and Kashmir has become an integral part of the country and they are glad about it.

Parties that Opposed the Decision

The parties those opposed the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370 include Congress, Trinamool Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, Janata Dal (United), Rashtriya Janta Dal, Left, National Conference, DMK and People’s Democratic Party. All these parties condemned and criticised the resolution.

Congress members mentioned that this was a “catastrophic step” and it should seen as a “black day” in the constitutional history of our country. It further said that this decision is a publicity stunt by BJP to fetch more votes. Likewise, Left mentioned that it is an attack on the Indian Constitution.

Members of People’s Democratic Party expressed their anger over the decision by shouting slogans and tearing copies of Indian Constitution. National Conference called the decision shocking and unilateral. Trinamool Congress also expressed its objection against the Centre’s decision.

DMK went on to say that this was simply the murder of democracy. It said that BJP is forcing its agenda and that it has no respect for the sentiments of the Jammu and Kashmir residents.

Revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is indeed a big decision. A major change in J&K is likely underway now. We hope things change for good for this beautiful state which has long struggled for peace and justice. The Centre must make special efforts to resurrect J&K and make it a better and safer place to live.

Related Topics on Indian Constitution

Find More Information about Indian Independence Day:

Independence Day Speech | Speech on Independence Day for Teachers | Independence Day Speech for Principal | Slogans on Independence Day | Facts about Independence Day of India | Speech on 15 August 1947 by Nehru | Independence Day Quotes | Live Celebration Ceremony of 69th Independence Day of India at Red Fort Delhi

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Join or Sign In

Sign in to customize your TV listings

By joining TV Guide, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy .

TV Listings

• Cast & Crew

Article 370

• 2 hr 40 mins
• Drama, Suspense, Action & Adventure

This drama is based on the actual events after the Indian government enacted Article 370, giving special status to Kashmir and Jammu. Zooni Haksar is a field agent whose assignment may be beyond her years. She's selected to go into Kashmir and crack down on the rising terrorism in the region; the ultimate goal is to repeal Article 370 without any bloodshed.

Loading. Please wait...

My cable/satellite provider:

There are no TV airings over the next 14 days. Add it to your Watchlist to receive updates and availability notifications.

Cast & Crew See All

Yami Gautam

Zooni haksar.

Rajeshwari Swaminathan

Kiran karmarkar, home minister, latest news see all, popular movies see all movies.

Legend of the Lost Locket

Wicked Little Letters

10 Things I Hate About You

The Fallout

Johnny Guitar

Young catherine, trailers & videos.