Article 370 and Article 35A once granted Jammu and Kashmir a unique constitutional status, allowing it autonomy unlike any other Indian state. Their abrogation in August 2019 marked a turning point in India’s constitutional and political history, reshaping the relationship between Jammu & Kashmir and the rest of the country.
What Was the Historical Background of Articles 370 and 35A
The roots of Article 370 go back to the aftermath of India’s independence in 1947. When Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, signed the Instrument of Accession, he agreed to accede to India on three subjects, defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Based on this agreement, Article 370 was incorporated into the Indian Constitution in 1949. Drafted by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, with the participation of Sheikh Abdullah, it granted J&K special autonomy, limiting Parliament’s legislative powers over the state. Jammu and Kashmir even had its own Constitution, flag, and control over residency and property laws.
Article 35A was later introduced in 1954 through a Presidential Order issued under Article 370. It empowered the J&K Legislature to define “permanent residents” and provide them exclusive rights in areas such as property ownership, government jobs, and scholarships. This meant that Indians from other states could not buy land or seek employment in Jammu and Kashmir. The provision remained controversial for decades as it was seen to violate the equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution.
What Did Articles 370 and 35A Mean in Practice
Article 370 ensured that central laws and constitutional provisions did not automatically apply to Jammu and Kashmir. Any such extension required the concurrence of the state government and subsequent approval by its legislature. The Indian Parliament’s authority was thus restricted, preserving the state’s autonomy in most areas.
Article 35A, on the other hand, allowed the state legislature to privilege certain residents over others, effectively creating a class of citizens within India who enjoyed special rights unavailable to others. Non-residents of J&K were barred from owning property, securing local government employment, or receiving welfare benefits, which deepened the sense of separateness from the rest of the nation.
How Was Article 370 Abrogated in 2019
The abrogation of Article 370 occurred through a carefully structured legal and political process in August 2019. The central government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), issued two Presidential Orders, Constitution Orders 272 and 273, on 5 and 6 August 2019. The first order amended Article 367 (which defines constitutional terms) to replace the phrase “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” with “Legislative Assembly of the State.” Since the state was under President’s Rule at the time, Parliament functioned as its legislative body.
Subsequently, Parliament passed a resolution recommending that Article 370 be made inoperative. Acting on this recommendation, the President of India issued a formal declaration that effectively nullified the article. With this step, all provisions of the Indian Constitution became fully applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, ending its special constitutional status.
Simultaneously, Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bifurcated the state into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir (with its own legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). This reorganisation marked the first time in India’s history that a state was downgraded into union territories, signifying direct central governance.
What Were the Legal and Constitutional Consequences
The abrogation had sweeping constitutional implications. Article 35A, being a derivative of Article 370, ceased to exist automatically. Consequently, the privileges of “permanent residents” were abolished, allowing all Indian citizens equal rights in property ownership, employment, and education within Jammu and Kashmir.
The move was later challenged in the Supreme Court. In December 2023, the Court upheld the legality of the abrogation, ruling that the President’s power under Article 370(3) was not limited by the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly. The Court affirmed that Parliament could act as the state legislature under President’s Rule and that the constitutional process adopted was valid.
The abrogation thus legally integrated Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union, eliminating the last vestiges of its constitutional autonomy. However, the decision also stirred debates over federalism, constitutional propriety, and the political implications of such unilateral action.
What Were the Political and Social Implications of the Abrogation
The central government justified the abrogation as a step toward national integration, equality, and economic development. It argued that Article 370 had created barriers preventing full participation of J&K in India’s democratic and economic frameworks. Following the abrogation, several central laws, ranging from the Right to Education Act to laws protecting women’s rights, were extended to the region. The government also emphasized that the move would attract investments, promote tourism, and generate employment.
However, critics viewed it differently. Many argued that the abrogation undermined the principle of cooperative federalism and disregarded the consent of the local population. The communication lockdown, detention of political leaders, and increased military presence that followed intensified concerns about human rights and democratic freedoms. Some regional parties described it as an erosion of constitutional trust between the Union and the former state.
Why Is the Abrogation Considered a Turning Point in Indian Constitutional History
The removal of Articles 370 and 35A marked a decisive shift from asymmetric federalism toward complete constitutional uniformity. It reinforced the supremacy of Parliament in determining the political structure of states and union territories. The abrogation also showcased the use of constitutional mechanisms, such as Presidential Orders and legislative resolutions, to achieve major structural changes without formal constitutional amendment.
From a political standpoint, it redefined the narrative of national unity, emphasizing integration over autonomy. For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, it opened new opportunities under national laws but also generated uncertainty over the preservation of cultural and political identity.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A represents one of the most transformative moments in India’s post-independence constitutional journey. While it ended the region’s special status and brought Jammu and Kashmir under the same legal framework as the rest of India, it also ignited a debate on the balance between national integration and regional autonomy. Its legacy continues to shape India’s discourse on federalism, democracy, and the future of its diverse union.
