Few provisions of the Indian Constitution have generated as much political, constitutional and historical debate as Article 370, which established special constitutional arrangements for the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The provision was introduced in the context of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India in 1947 and remained an important part of India's constitutional structure for decades. In August 2019, the Union government took steps that effectively ended the special constitutional status associated with Article 370 and reorganised the former state into two Union Territories. The Supreme Court subsequently examined the constitutional validity of these measures and upheld the core actions taken in 2019.
But how did Article 370 come into existence in the first place—and why did its removal take such a different constitutional route?
The Princely States and the Making of Independent India
Before independence, the Indian subcontinent consisted broadly of British-administered territories and hundreds of princely states.
The princely states were governed internally by their respective rulers, while the British exercised control over areas such as defence, external affairs and communications.
When British rule ended in 1947, the political integration of these princely states became one of the major challenges facing the new Indian Union.
Among the most complicated cases were Junagadh, Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir. Their rulers and demographic compositions created different political and constitutional complications.
The integration process generally involved instruments such as the Instrument of Accession, through which rulers agreed to accede to India on specified subjects.
Jammu and Kashmir in 1947
Jammu and Kashmir presented a particularly complicated situation.
The state was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, while the population was predominantly Muslim. Hari Singh initially sought to maintain an independent position rather than immediately accede to either India or Pakistan.
According to the transcript, Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir entered into a standstill arrangement concerning matters such as trade, travel and communications, while India did not accept the proposed arrangement.
The situation changed dramatically in October 1947 when armed tribal forces entered Jammu and Kashmir from the direction of Pakistan. Faced with the deteriorating security situation, Maharaja Hari Singh sought military assistance from India.
The Instrument of Accession was signed on 26 October 1947, and Indian troops were subsequently sent to the state. The accession placed defence, external affairs and communications under the Union's authority, while leaving other matters within the state's constitutional framework.
The United Nations and the Kashmir Dispute
The conflict between India and Pakistan subsequently became an international issue.
India took the matter to the United Nations, and a ceasefire eventually came into effect on 1 January 1949. The ceasefire line later evolved into what is now known as the Line of Control.
The question of a plebiscite became part of the UN framework, but the conditions associated with that process—including the withdrawal of Pakistani forces—were never fulfilled.
This unresolved history became one of the central reasons why the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and India remained politically sensitive for decades.
Why Was Article 370 Created?
While India's Constitution was being drafted, the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union required a special arrangement.
Article 370 was therefore included in the Constitution as a temporary provision dealing with Jammu and Kashmir.
It provided a constitutional mechanism under which the application of provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir could be extended through Presidential Orders, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 370.
Initially, the Union's direct constitutional authority was particularly connected with the subjects covered by the Instrument of Accession—defence, external affairs and communications. Other provisions could be extended through the constitutional procedure established under Article 370.
This arrangement created a distinctive constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India.
The Delhi Agreement and Article 35A
The constitutional relationship continued to evolve.
Discussions between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah resulted in what became known as the Delhi Agreement of 1952.
One of the important issues concerned the rights of permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.
The earlier State Subject Law of 1927 had provided special protections concerning land ownership and government employment. These protections were subsequently reflected in constitutional arrangements concerning Jammu and Kashmir.
In 1954, a Presidential Order extended a large number of provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and introduced Article 35A, which recognised the state's authority concerning special rights and privileges of its permanent residents.
Over subsequent decades, additional provisions of the Indian Constitution were extended to Jammu and Kashmir through Presidential Orders.
Thus, the constitutional relationship was not frozen permanently in the form in which Article 370 originally appeared. It evolved over time.
Why Did Article 370 Remain for So Long?
One of the unusual features of Article 370 was its relationship with the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.
The original provision contained a mechanism involving the recommendation of the state's Constituent Assembly for its modification or cessation.
However, the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly eventually dissolved after framing the state's Constitution.
This created a significant constitutional question: If the Constituent Assembly no longer existed, how could the original mechanism for ending Article 370 operate?
That question became central to later political and constitutional debates.
The Road to 2019
The political movement to remove Article 370 became particularly associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party, which had long opposed the special constitutional arrangements relating to Jammu and Kashmir.
A major political development occurred after the 2014 Jammu and Kashmir Assembly election.
The BJP won 25 seats, while the People's Democratic Party won 28. Neither party could form a government independently, leading to a coalition between the two parties in 2015.
The coalition eventually collapsed.
On 19 June 2018, the BJP withdrew support from the Mehbooba Mufti-led government. Jammu and Kashmir subsequently came under Governor's Rule and later President's Rule.
The constitutional circumstances created by President's Rule became important to the events that followed.
August 2019: The Constitutional Transformation
The decisive moment came in August 2019.
On 5 August 2019, the Union government introduced constitutional measures relating to Article 370 in Parliament.
Presidential Order C.O. 272 extended the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir with modifications, while the government also introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill.
Parliament passed the relevant measures, and the President subsequently issued C.O. 273, declaring that all clauses of Article 370 would cease to operate except for a newly substituted provision stating that the Constitution of India would apply to Jammu and Kashmir without exceptions or modifications.
The Supreme Court later described the 2019 measures as having the effect of applying the entire Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir and abrogating Article 370.
Jammu and Kashmir Was Reorganised
The changes did not stop with Article 370.
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 divided the former State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories:
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Union Territory of Ladakh
The reorganisation came into effect on 31 October 2019.
This represented a major change in the constitutional and administrative structure of the region.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The constitutional changes were challenged before the Supreme Court of India.
In its December 2023 judgment, a Constitution Bench upheld the President's 2019 actions relating to Article 370 and the reorganisation framework, while also directing that elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly be held by September 2024 and that statehood be restored at the earliest.
The judgment is particularly important because it provides the judiciary's authoritative constitutional analysis of the events surrounding Article 370.
A Debate That Spanned More Than Seven Decades
The story of Article 370 cannot be understood only through the events of August 2019.
Its roots lie in the circumstances surrounding the 1947 accession of Jammu and Kashmir, the India-Pakistan conflict, the United Nations process, the relationship between the Union and the state, the political role of leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Sheikh Abdullah and Maharaja Hari Singh, and the constitutional developments that followed.
Over the decades, the relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union changed substantially through Presidential Orders and constitutional developments.
The 2019 decision therefore represented the culmination of a long constitutional and political history rather than an isolated event.
Summary
Article 370 was born out of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India in 1947.
For decades, it provided a distinctive constitutional framework for the state while successive governments gradually extended large portions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir.
In August 2019, the Union government fundamentally altered that arrangement through Presidential Orders, parliamentary legislation and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act.
The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment subsequently upheld the core constitutional actions.
The history of Article 370 therefore represents a complex intersection of constitutional law, political negotiation, national integration, regional identity and the India-Pakistan conflict.
Understanding that history requires distinguishing documented constitutional events from political interpretations and disputed claims and examining each stage in the context in which it occurred.
