Article 370 of the Constitution

Article 370 was meant to be temporary. It lasted almost seventy years. Then, in August 2019, the government ended it in two days. The Supreme Court later upheld that step. This article tells the story in order: what the article was, how it was ended, and what the Court said.

1What was Article 370?

1.1 Why was it called temporary?

Article 370 sat in Part XXI of the Constitution. That part is titled “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”. The framers saw it as a bridge. It gave Jammu and Kashmir a special place until its own people could settle its future through their Constituent Assembly.

1.2 What did the special status mean?

Parliament could make laws for the state on only a few subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications. On other matters, it needed the state government’s concurrence. Most of the Indian Constitution did not apply on its own. A Presidential Order was needed to extend each provision. The state also had its own constitution. Scholars call this asymmetric federalism.

• Part XXI of the Constitution.
• Parliament’s power limited to the Instrument of Accession subjects.
• Other provisions applied only by Presidential Order.
• A separate constitution for the state.

1.3 What did clause (3) say?

Article 370(3) let the President declare the article inoperative by public notification. But there was a condition. The recommendation of the state’s Constituent Assembly was necessary first. That assembly dissolved itself in 1957. So the condition had no body left to meet it. This gap became the heart of the 2023 case.

2How did Jammu and Kashmir join India?

2.1 How did the state join India?

In 1947, British rule ended and India split into two countries. Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state. Its ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. It joined the state to India. At first it covered only defence, foreign affairs and communications.

2.2 How does Article 370 connect to that?

Article 370 mirrored this limited deal. It was a bridge. It was not a transfer of sovereignty to the state. The Court later made this point clearly.

3How was Article 370 ended in 2019?

3.1 What was the problem to solve?

The government wanted to end Article 370. But the Constituent Assembly no longer existed. So it chose a different route. It used Article 370 itself and Article 367, which explains how words in the Constitution are read.

3.2 What happened on 5 and 6 August 2019?

The state was then under President’s Rule. So Parliament did the work of the state legislature. The steps came in a fixed order.

• 5 August 2019: The President issued Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, C.O. 272. It applied the whole Constitution to the state.
• C.O. 272 also changed Article 367. It treated the state’s Legislative Assembly as its Constituent Assembly.
• Parliament passed a resolution recommending the end of Article 370.
• 6 August 2019: The President issued C.O. 273. It declared Article 370 inoperative.

Home Minister Amit Shah moved the resolution and the reorganisation bill in Parliament.

3.3 What changed on the ground?

Before the announcement, authorities restricted movement in Kashmir. Phone and internet services were cut in many areas. Former Chief Ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti were placed under preventive detention. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 took effect on 31 October 2019. It split the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

3.4 What happened to Article 35A?

Article 35A was added in 1954 by a Presidential Order. It let the state legislature define who counted as a permanent resident. Only such residents could buy land or hold state jobs. It also affected a woman’s property rights if she married a man from outside the state. The 2019 orders ended Article 35A along with the old special status.

4What did the Supreme Court decide in 2023?

4.1 What was the case about?

Petitioners challenged both orders. They said the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation was needed. They also said Article 367 could not be used to change the meaning of Article 370. A five-judge Constitution Bench heard the case. It gave judgment on 11 December 2023.

4.2 What did the Court hold?

• The President could apply the whole Constitution to the state under Article 370(1)(d). State concurrence was not needed here.
• The use of Article 367 to change Article 370 was invalid. It was an indirect amendment.
• Article 370(3) stayed alive after the Constituent Assembly dissolved. So C.O. 273 was valid.
• Article 370 was a temporary provision. It did not give the state sovereignty.
• The creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh was upheld.

The Court left one question open. It did not decide whether the state itself could be turned into a Union Territory under Article 3. The Union government told the Court that statehood would be restored. The Court recorded this. It asked for restoration as soon as possible, and for Assembly elections by 30 September 2024.

5Where does Jammu and Kashmir stand now?

5.1 What happened after the judgment?

The Election Commission held the Assembly election in September and October 2024. Omar Abdullah took oath as Chief Minister on 16 October 2024. His National Conference won 42 of the 90 seats.

5.2 Is Jammu and Kashmir a state again?

Not yet. It is still a Union Territory with an elected Assembly. On 28 September 2026, the Assembly passed a resolution asking for the immediate restoration of full statehood. Omar Abdullah moved it. The BJP opposed it and walked out. A resolution of this kind is not binding. The Centre has said statehood will return at an appropriate time. No date has been set.

• October 2024: Omar Abdullah sworn in.
• Status: Union Territory, with an elected Assembly.
• 28 September 2026: the Assembly asks for statehood.
• Ladakh: Union Territory without a legislature.

6What is the exam angle?

6.1 What should you remember for exams?

• Dates: 5 and 6 August 2019. Judgment 11 December 2023.
• Trap: The Court struck down the end of Article 370. No, it upheld it.
• Trap: The whole route was valid. No, the Article 367 step was held invalid.
• Fact: Part XXI. Three subjects: defence, foreign affairs, communications.
• Fact: Article 370(3) needed the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation.
• Method: Remember the order: C.O. 272, resolution, C.O. 273, Reorganisation Act.