The Abrogation of Article 370: Legal and Political Ramifications in IIOJK

On August 5, 2019, India made illegal constitutional move by abrogating Article 370 and Article 35A, which had granted special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This decision, announced by the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah, was implemented amid an indefinite lockdown and a substantial troop deployment in the disputed region.

Article 370, introduced in 1949, was the foundation for Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to the Indian Union in 1947. It granted the region significant autonomy, allowing it to maintain its own constitution, flag, and jurisdiction over all matters except finance, defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Article 35A, added through a presidential order in 1954, enabled the state legislature to define permanent residents, restricting outsiders from settling, buying property, and accessing state jobs and scholarships.

Before the abrogation, these articles established a unique legal framework that provided Jammu and Kashmir with significant autonomy, distinguishing it from other Indian states. Article 370 was intended as a temporary provision, yet it played a crucial role in preserving the state’s demographic and cultural identity, bolstered by Article 35A.

In August 2019, the BJP-led government abrogated Article 370 through a presidential decree and introduced a bill to bifurcate the state into two union territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislative assembly) and Ladakh (without one). This move was executed during a communication blackout and the house arrest of pro-India leaders, drawing significant domestic and international reactions, particularly from Pakistan.

The legality of the abrogation was challenged in the Indian Supreme Court, leading to a landmark verdict in December 2023. The five-judge constitutional bench ruled that Article 370 was a “temporary provision,” and its abrogation was constitutionally valid. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized that Article 370 was an interim measure due to the wartime conditions in 1947, and its removal was within the constitutional framework.

The abrogation significantly altered India’s federal structure by integrating Jammu and Kashmir more closely with the rest of India. The transformation of the state into union territories diminished its autonomy, placing it under the direct control of the central government. This shift has profound implications for federalism in India, raising concerns about the balance of power between central and state governments.

The abrogation also ignited debates on human rights and civil liberties. The lockdown, communication blackout, and detention of political leaders were widely criticized for violating fundamental rights. Legal challenges focused on these issues, highlighting the tension between national security and individual freedoms.

With the revocation of special status, people from other parts of India can now buy property and settle in Jammu and Kashmir. This change has sparked fears of demographic shifts and potential marginalization of the local population. Legal challenges have emerged, questioning the impact on property rights and the socio-economic fabric of the region.

The Indian Supreme Court’s call for restoring Jammu and Kashmir to full statehood “at the earliest and as soon as possible” suggests ongoing legal and political processes. Future legislative actions and policy decisions will continue to shape the region’s status and governance. Legal experts anticipate further challenges and debates on the implications of the abrogation and the restoration process.

The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A marks a pivotal moment in the legal and political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. While the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the move, its broader implications for federalism, human rights, and regional stability remain hotly debated. The ongoing legal challenges and future policy decisions will play a crucial role in shaping the future of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian Union.