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.
It asks 2 things — 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 sits in Part XXI, 'Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions', under the marginal note 'Temporary provisions', yet it lasted over six decades by 2016.
Cover
- Temporary by design: Union law-making confined to Instrument of Accession subjects, other matters needing the State government's concurrence; an interim arrangement.
- Clause (3): ending it needed the State Constituent Assembly's recommendation; that body dissolved in 1957 without making one.
- Courts: Sampat Prakash (1968) held Article 370 continued to operate after the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist.
- Practice: Presidential Orders under clause (1)(d) extended most of the Constitution, so special content narrowed while the article survived.
- Prospects in 2016: gradual hollowing, contested abrogation (with the Article 35A debate) or greater autonomy.
- Since then: Constitution Order 273 (6 August 2019) made all clauses but one inoperative; In re Article 370 (11 December 2023) upheld it and called Article 370 temporary.
Close with · The Supreme Court has settled the legal question of permanence; the remaining task in the polity is political: restoring statehood and normal democratic life in Jammu and Kashmir.
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”
- Article 370 is placed in Part XXI of the Constitution, titled 'Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions'.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Part XXI — Legislative Department ↗“PART XXI TEMPORARY, TRANSITIONAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS”
- On 11 December 2023 the Supreme Court held Article 370 to be a temporary provision, meant to serve a specific function.Supreme Court of India, In re Article 370 of the Constitution, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019, judgment of 11 December 2023 (2023 INSC 1058) ↗“This leaves no manner of doubt that Article 370 was a temporary provision, meant to serve a specific function.”
- The Court identified two purposes behind Article 370; the temporary one was an interim arrangement because of the war conditions in the State.Supreme Court of India, In re Article 370 of the Constitution, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019, judgment of 11 December 2023 (2023 INSC 1058) ↗“an interim arrangement because of the special circumstances in the State because of the war conditions of the State (the temporary purpose)”
- The Court records that the State's Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1957.Supreme Court of India, In re Article 370 of the Constitution, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019, judgment of 11 December 2023 (2023 INSC 1058) ↗“after the Constituent Assembly of the State was dissolved in 1957”
- The Court states that it has upheld the validity of CO 273, the Presidential order under Article 370(3).Supreme Court of India, In re Article 370 of the Constitution, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019, judgment of 11 December 2023 (2023 INSC 1058) ↗“This Court has upheld the validity of CO 273.”
- The 2023 judgment records the point for which Sampat Prakash was cited: neither the State Constituent Assembly nor the President had ever declared Article 370 inoperative.Supreme Court of India, In re Article 370 of the Constitution, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019, judgment of 11 December 2023 (2023 INSC 1058) ↗“Neither the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir nor the President had ever made a declaration that Article 370 ceased to be operative”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2016, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 285words · Minimalist IAS
Article 370 sits in Part XXI, 'Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions', under a marginal note calling it temporary. Yet by 2016 it had governed Jammu and Kashmir's link with the Union for over six decades.
To what extent Article 370 was temporary
- Interim by design: Union law-making was confined to subjects corresponding to the Instrument of Accession; other matters needed the State government's concurrence.
- Clause (3) trap: the President could end it only on the State Constituent Assembly's recommendation; that body dissolved in 1957 without making one.
- Judicial reading: in Sampat Prakash (1968) the Supreme Court held that the article continued to operate even after the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist.
- Erosion in practice: Presidential Orders under clause (1)(d) extended most of the Constitution, narrowing the special status.
| Test | Points to 'temporary' | Points to 'permanent' |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Part XXI, marginal note | Clause (3) needs a dissolved body |
| Practice | Steady extension of the Constitution | Sampat Prakash (1968) |
- Verdict: temporary in intent, near-permanent in fact.
Future prospects of the provision in Indian polity
- Gradual hollowing: further Presidential Orders could thin the special status while keeping its shell.
- Abrogation: legally contested, since the body named in clause (3) no longer existed; Article 35A, limiting non-residents' rights, sharpened the integration debate.
- Greater autonomy: demanded within the State, but hard to reconcile with one constitutional order.
- Since then: Constitution Order 273 (6 August 2019) made all clauses but one inoperative; on 11 December 2023 In re Article 370 upheld this, calling the article temporary and tied to the State's war conditions.
The Supreme Court has settled the question of permanence; the remaining task is political: restoring statehood and normal democratic life, so that integration rests on consent as well as law.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
