To what extent is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, bearing marginal note “Temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, temporary? Discuss the future prospects of this provision in the context of Indian polity.
Approach · directive: “to what extent / discuss”
What it asks · Test how temporary Article 370 really was (its text, clause 3 and practice), and discuss where it was heading; note that the provision has since been ended.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- To what extent: how temporary Article 370 really was, from its text, clause (3) and practice, with a clear position
- Discuss: the future prospects of the provision in Indian polity
Open with · Article 370 was placed in Part XXI as a temporary and transitional provision for Jammu and Kashmir, yet it lasted seven decades.
Cover
- Text: Parliament's power to make laws for J&K was limited to Union and Concurrent List matters that corresponded, in consultation with the State government, to the Instrument of Accession, and to other matters only with that government's concurrence.
- Clause (3): the President could end it only on the State Constituent Assembly's recommendation; it dissolved in 1957 without recommending, so the article seemed permanent.
- Courts: in Sampat Prakash (decided 1968, often cited as 1969) the Supreme Court held that Article 370 continued to operate even though the Constituent Assembly had ceased to exist.
- In practice: Presidential Orders under clause (1)(d) extended most of the Constitution to J&K over the years, making the article a channel of integration as its special content narrowed.
- Debate then: supporters saw a guarantee of autonomy; critics saw a barrier to integration, with Article 35A limiting the rights of non-residents.
- Since 2019: by Constitution Order 273 of 6 August 2019 all clauses of Article 370 but one ceased to operate, and that clause now applies the whole Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir; the Supreme Court upheld this on 11 December 2023 (In re Article 370).
Close with · Article 370 was temporary in intent and weakened in practice; its end in 2019, upheld by the Supreme Court, settled the legal question, and the focus now lies on restoring statehood and normal politics.
Add value (verified)
- The current text of the Constitution records that the President declared all clauses of Article 370 inoperative from 6 August 2019 except one. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 370, footnote on C.O. 273 — Legislative Department ↗“the President, on the recommendation of Parliament, is pleased to declare that, as from the 6th August, 2019 all clauses of said article 370 shall cease to be operative except the following which shall read as under”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2016, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 306 words (UPSC limit 200) · Minimalist IAS
Article 370 was placed in Part XXI as a temporary and transitional provision, yet by 2016 it had governed the Union's relationship with Jammu and Kashmir for over six decades.
How temporary it was
- Text: Parliament's law-making power for the State was confined to Union and Concurrent List matters corresponding to the Instrument of Accession, in consultation with the State government, and to other matters only with its concurrence.
- Clause (3): the President could declare the article inoperative only on the State Constituent Assembly's recommendation; that Assembly dissolved in 1957 without recommending, which made the provision look permanent.
- Courts: in Sampat Prakash (1968) the Supreme Court held that Article 370 continued to operate even after the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist.
- Practice: Presidential Orders under clause (1)(d) extended most of the Constitution to the State, so the article became a channel of integration while its special content narrowed.
- Verdict: temporary in intent, durable in law and near-permanent in political fact.
Future prospects
- Continuity with erosion: the likeliest course was further Presidential Orders hollowing out the article while its shell stayed.
- Repeal: legally contested, since the body named in clause (3) no longer existed, and politically divisive; supporters saw a guarantee of autonomy, critics a barrier to integration, with Article 35A limiting non-residents' rights.
- Restored autonomy: demanded within the State, but hard to reconcile with a single constitutional order.
- (since then, Constitution Order 273 of 6 August 2019 made all clauses of Article 370 inoperative except one, which now applies the whole Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir; a Constitution Bench upheld this on 11 December 2023 in In re Article 370.)
Article 370 was temporary in design but durable in practice, and its future turned on political will rather than legal text; the 2019 change, now upheld, has moved the debate to restoring statehood and normal politics.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.