"J&K Statehood Restoration Debate: Constitutional Design and Democratic Accountability"
Article 370
constitutional provision that accorded J&K special autonomous status within the Indian Union until 2019.
Union Territory with Legislature
a UT governed under Articles 239/239A where Parliament retains power to legislate on State List subjects.
Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional journey is among the most layered in independent India's history. At accession in 1947, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession under conditions of Pakistani-sponsored infiltration, leading to a negotiated arrangement that accorded J&K greater autonomy than other princely states. This was formalised through Article 370, which restricted Parliament's legislative competence over J&K to the Union List subjects specified in the Instrument of Accession, and required the state government's concurrence for extending other Union and Concurrent List legislation. The Delhi Agreement of 1952 further entrenched this arrangement, and J&K adopted its own constitution in 1956. Until 1965, the head of government was styled Prime Minister and the constitutional head Sadr-e-Riyasat — titles that underscored the state's distinctive federal position. These were subsequently replaced by the standard designations of Chief Minister and Governor, bringing J&K structurally closer to other states while the substantive autonomy under Article 370 remained.
The constitutional distinction between a state and a Union Territory is foundational to the current debate. Under the Seventh Schedule, states exercise exclusive legislative authority over State List subjects and concurrent authority over the Concurrent List. A Union Territory with a legislature — governed under Articles 239 and 239A — does not possess equivalent autonomy: Parliament retains the power to legislate on State List subjects for Union Territories, and the Lieutenant Governor exercises independent authority that a Governor in a full state does not. This structural asymmetry is not merely symbolic; it determines who controls police, land, prosecution, and senior bureaucratic appointments — the sinews of day-to-day governance.
The NCERT record of J&K's political history underscores a recurring lesson: regional aspirations are best addressed through democratic negotiation and genuine power-sharing rather than suppression or administrative centralisation. The Mizoram settlement, the Indira–Sheikh accord of 1974, and the restoration of elections in 1996 after the insurgency decade all illustrate that durable stability in contested regions requires elected institutions with real authority, not merely formal democratic structures.
On 5 August 2019, the Government of India issued Presidential Orders under Article 370(3) rendering all provisions of the Indian Constitution applicable to J&K, effectively dissolving the special constitutional architecture. Simultaneously, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 — enacted under Article 3 — bifurcated the erstwhile state into two Union Territories: J&K (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). The stated rationale was threefold: ending separatism and integrating J&K fully with the Union, achieving security gains by dismantling militant networks, and improving governance by removing the insulation that special status allegedly provided to corruption and administrative inefficiency.
The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment of December 2023 upheld the abrogation of Article 370 as constitutionally valid, but it recorded the Union government's commitment to restore statehood at the 'appropriate time' and directed that Assembly elections be held by September 2024. The Court treated the two questions — validity of abrogation and restoration of statehood — as legally separate, leaving the latter as a political commitment rather than a judicially enforceable obligation. …
Which one of the following is not a feature of Indian federalism?
We have adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?
1.As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign, but in India, the power of the Parliament to make laws is limited.
2.In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional position of Jammu and Kashmir after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019:
1.J&K was bifurcated into two Union Territories under Article 3 of the Constitution.
2.Parliament can legislate on State List subjects for J&K as a Union Territory.
3.The Lieutenant Governor of J&K exercises the same authority as a Governor of a full state.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly describes the constitutional provision under which Presidential Orders were issued in 2019 to render all provisions of the Indian Constitution applicable to Jammu and Kashmir?
With reference to the governance of Union Territories with legislatures in India, consider the following statements:
1.Parliament can legislate on subjects in the State List for Union Territories.
2.The Lieutenant Governor of a Union Territory with a legislature is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters.
3.The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment of December 2023 upheld the abrogation of Article 370 but recorded the Union government's commitment to restore J&K's statehood.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): Restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir would not reverse the abrogation of Article 370.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench treated the validity of the abrogation of Article 370 and the restoration of statehood as legally separate questions.
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account