Article 370, a provision in the Indian Constitution, granted special autonomy to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. This article, often a subject of debate and contention, provided the region with unique privileges, including its constitution, a separate flag, and the freedom to make laws on various subjects, except foreign affairs, defense, and communications, which remained under the purview of the federal government.
In recent news, India’s Supreme Court has upheld the removal of Article 370, stripping the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The court directed the government to hold elections in the region by September 2024 and restore its status as a state at the earliest. The decision was part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2019 election promise and has sparked reactions from local politicians in the region.
What is Article 370?
Article 370 was a temporary provision in the Indian Constitution that granted special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It allowed the state to have its own constitution and decision-making powers on several matters.
Article 370 Kya Hai (What is Article 370 in Hindi)
आर्टिकल 370 एक अस्थायी प्रावधान था जो भारतीय संविधान में था और जम्मू और कश्मीर राज्य को विशेष स्वायत्ता प्रदान करता था। इसका हटाया जाना एक महत्वपूर्ण घटना थी जो राज्य की पुनर्गठन के साथ हुई।
Article 370 Removal Date
The revocation of Article 370 took place on August 5, 2019. The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, took this step, fulfilling a long-standing promise made by the ruling party.
Article 370 Removal Amendment
Article 370 was removed by the abrogation of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019. This order effectively nullified the special status granted to the region.
The Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370 and reorganize Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. The key arguments revolve around whether Parliament had the authority to amend Article 370 or if it required the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Temporary to Permanent: Article 370 was meant to be temporary until the J&K Constituent Assembly decided its fate. As no decision was made, it became permanent, and any changes required a political process.
- Accession and Internal Sovereignty: J&K had a unique relationship, with no merger agreement. The Instrument of Accession dealt with external sovereignty, and internal sovereignty had to be maintained.
- Concurrence of J&K Govt: For laws in List I or III, not covered by the IoA, the state government’s concurrence was necessary.
- Role of Governor: The Governor couldn’t dissolve the Legislative Assembly without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Reorganization Not Permissible: The reorganization violated the proviso to Article 3, as J&K Legislative Assembly’s consent was not taken.
Centre’s Contention
- Due Process Followed: No deviation from due process; sovereignty was surrendered upon accession.
- Karan Singh’s Proclamation: The proclamation accepted the supremacy of the Indian Constitution and surrendered sovereignty.
- No Two Constitutions: The J&K Constituent Assembly was not plenary as sovereignty had merged.
- UT Temporary: UT status is temporary, and the timeline for statehood restoration depends on the unique circumstances.
Supreme Court Queries
- Article 370 Position: If it became permanent, why was it placed in temporary provisions? Is there a provision beyond Parliament’s amending power?
- People’s Opinion: In a constitutional democracy, the opinion must be sought through established institutions; no referendum is necessary.
- Article 370 and Article 1: Can Parliament amend Article 370 under Article 368? Transfer of sovereignty was absolute, as reflected in Article 1.
- Competence of Parliament: Restriction on State List items is implicit in the Constitution’s scheme. Article 370 wasn’t intended to be permanent.
- Duration of UT: Should Parliament be permitted to decide if a state temporarily becomes a UT for the nation’s preservation?
The Supreme Court’s verdict will determine the constitutional validity of revoking Article 370. The key issues include the permanency of Article 370, Parliament’s competence, and the implications of the reorganization. The decision will have far-reaching consequences for J&K’s political status and governance structure.
Abrogation of Article 370: The abrogation of Article 370 was a significant move that resulted in the reorganization of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was aimed at integrating the region more closely with the rest of India.
Article 370 in Simple Words: In simple terms, Article 370 was a temporary provision that granted special privileges to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, allowing it autonomy in certain matters. Its removal aimed to bring the region on par with other states in India.
Article 370 Meaning: Article 370’s meaning lies in its provision for temporary autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir. It was initially intended to be a temporary measure, but its longevity led to various interpretations and debates.
Article 370 and 35A: Article 35A, which granted special rights and privileges to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, was also nullified along with the removal of Article 370.
How Article 370 Was Removed UPSC: The removal of Article 370 was executed through a presidential order, superseding the previous presidential orders related to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The decision was later ratified by Parliament.
Article 370 and Kashmir: Article 370 has been a crucial element in shaping the relationship between India and the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Its removal signaled a shift in this dynamic.
In conclusion, the removal of Article 370 marked a significant constitutional change, impacting the relationship between the central government and the region of Jammu and Kashmir. The decision aimed to foster greater integration while generating debates on the implications for the residents and the region’s political landscape.
