Article 370 Abrogation, Unfulfilled Promises, and the Erosion of Constitutional Trust, Jammu & Kashmir’s Unresolved Status

Article 370 Abrogation, Unfulfilled Promises, and the Erosion of Constitutional Trust, Jammu & Kashmir’s Unresolved Status

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India’s December 2023 judgment on the abrogation of Article 370 has been widely misinterpreted as a validation of the government’s actions. In reality, the Court held that the method of “abrogation” was unconstitutional, but upheld the application of the entire Indian Constitution to Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) through Article 370(1). Despite the government’s promise to restore statehood to J&K by September 2024, it remains a Union Territory, fueling resentment and political instability. The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam and the central government’s failure to address statehood have further exacerbated tensions. This article examines the legal nuances of the Supreme Court’s decision, the unfulfilled commitments, and the implications for democracy and security in J&K.

Introduction

On August 5, 2019, the Government of India revoked the special status of Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370 and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: J&K and Ladakh. This move, executed amidst a communications blackout and political detentions, was justified on grounds of integration, development, and security. However, the constitutional validity of these actions was challenged in the Supreme Court, which delivered a complex verdict in December 2023. While the Court criticized the government’s procedural overreach, it effectively endorsed the outcome. The government’s subsequent failure to restore statehood, despite a court-stipulated deadline, has deepened the crisis in the region. This article delves into the legal, political, and social dimensions of this issue, highlighting the dangers of unkept promises and the urgent need for constitutional fidelity.

Key Issues and Background

1. The Legal Controversy Around Article 370 Abrogation
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomy to J&K, allowing it to have its own constitution and decision-making rights except in defense, foreign affairs, and communications. The government’s approach to abrogating this article involved three steps:

• Using Article 370(1) to amend Article 367 (the Interpretation Clause).

• Leveraging this amendment to modify Article 370(3).

• Using the modified Article 370(3) to abrogate Article 370 entirely.

The Supreme Court held that these steps were “impermissible and unconstitutional” because they circumvented the required process under Article 370(3), which mandates the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly for any changes. However, the Court upheld the application of the entire Indian Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1), achieving the same outcome as abrogation through a different legal route.

2. The Promise of Statehood Restoration
During the hearings, the central government assured the Supreme Court that it would restore statehood to J&K (excluding Ladakh) and hold elections by September 30, 2024. Based on this promise, the Court declined to rule on the legality of converting J&K into a Union Territory, leaving the question “open.” Elections were held in September 2024, and the National Conference (NC) formed the government. However, statehood has not been restored, violating the government’s commitment.

3. Political and Security Implications
The delay in restoring statehood has intensified public discontent. The people of J&K view the continuation of Union Territory status as a denial of their political rights and a betrayal of trust. The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which involved both foreign and Indian-based terrorists, has further complicated the security landscape. The government’s silence on the fate of arrested individuals and its attempt to link statehood to security concerns have raised questions about its intentions.

4. The Role of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s reliance on the government’s promise, rather than adjudicating the legality of the Union Territory status, has been criticized as judicial avoidance. The Court’s recent oral observations, suggesting that security issues like Pahalgam could influence the statehood decision, have added to the uncertainty. This has led to concerns about the judiciary’s ability to remain independent in the face of political and security pressures.

Specific Impacts or Effects

1. Erosion of Democratic Rights
The denial of statehood undermines representative governance and deprives J&K of the autonomy to address local issues effectively. The elected government operates with limited powers, unable to fully serve its constituents.

2. Security Concerns
The persistent security challenges, exemplified by the Pahalgam attack, are exacerbated by political instability. The lack of statehood hampers local law enforcement’s ability to respond to threats, as control remains with the central government.

3. Public Trust Deficit
The government’s failure to honor its promise has deepened distrust among the people of J&K. This resentment fuels alienation and provides fertile ground for radicalization.

4. Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court’s handling of this case sets a concerning precedent for future constitutional disputes, where government promises may override judicial scrutiny.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Challenges

• Constitutional Integrity: Balancing security concerns with constitutional commitments.

• Political Will: Overcoming partisan interests to prioritize J&K’s democratic rights.

• Security Management: Addressing terrorism without compromising on governance.

• Judicial Independence: Ensuring the judiciary remains immune to political and security pressures.

Steps Forward

1. Restore Statehood Immediately: The central government must fulfill its promise without further delay.

2. Strengthen Democratic Institutions: Empower the elected government to address local issues and improve governance.

3. Enhance Security Cooperation: Foster collaboration between central and local agencies to combat terrorism effectively.

4. Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court should adjudicate the legality of the Union Territory status to provide constitutional closure.

5. Dialogue and Reconciliation: Engage with all stakeholders in J&K to address grievances and build trust.

Conclusion

The abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent failure to restore statehood have left Jammu & Kashmir in a state of constitutional and political limbo. The Supreme Court’s verdict, while critiquing the government’s methods, failed to provide full justice by relying on unfulfilled promises. The people of J&K deserve both security and democracy, not as competing priorities but as complementary pillars of peace. The central government must honor its commitments, and the judiciary must ensure that constitutional values prevail over political expediency. Only then can J&K truly integrate into the Indian Union with dignity and rights.

5 Questions and Answers

Q1: What did the Supreme Court rule on the abrogation of Article 370?
A: The Court held the method of abrogation unconstitutional but upheld the application of the entire Indian Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1).

Q2: Why has statehood not been restored to J&K?
A: Despite the government’s promise to the Supreme Court, political and security concerns have been cited as reasons for the delay.

Q3: What was the government’s commitment to the Supreme Court?
A: The government promised to restore statehood and hold elections by September 30, 2024. Elections were held, but statehood remains pending.

Q4: How has the delay in statehood affected J&K?
A: It has fueled public resentment, undermined democratic governance, and exacerbated security challenges.

Q5: What should be the way forward?
A: Immediate restoration of statehood, judicial clarity on the Union Territory status, and enhanced security cooperation to address terrorism.