Article 370: A changed settlement

On 5 August 2019, while Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule, the Union government moved to end the special constitutional arrangements associated with Article 370. Presidential orders applied the Indian Constitution in full and made the provision largely inoperative. Parliament also passed legislation dividing the state into two Union territories. [1] [2] [3]

The measures changed both the region’s constitutional relationship with New Delhi and the structure through which it was governed. They also arrived amid restrictions on communications and movement, making the change an immediate question of civil liberties as well as constitutional law. [3] [4]

Two changes, different questions

Article 370 had provided a special mechanism for applying constitutional provisions to Jammu and Kashmir. The 2019 orders displaced that arrangement. The Reorganisation Act separately created Ladakh without a legislature and Jammu and Kashmir with one, effective from 31 October 2019. Ending special status and removing statehood were related political decisions with different legal consequences. [2] [3]

Home Minister Amit Shah presented the measures as a route to integration, development and wider access to rights. Those were the government’s arguments for acting. Whether particular changes improved incomes, services or security requires evidence about those outcomes, beyond the fact that the constitutional orders took effect. [1]

The Supreme Court upheld the Article 370 change in December 2023. It found the provision temporary and upheld the presidential declaration making it inoperative. The Court did not, however, decide whether Parliament could convert the entire state into Union territories, citing the Union’s assurance that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be restored. It separately upheld the creation of Ladakh. [3]

Restrictions and representation

The restrictions surrounding August 2019 generated their own litigation. In Anuradha Bhasin, the Supreme Court recorded the shutdown of mobile networks, internet and landlines in the Valley, alongside movement restrictions. In January 2020 it required publication and review of relevant orders and held that internet suspension could not continue indefinitely. [4]

That ruling concerned how restrictions were imposed and reviewed. It was separate from the later constitutional judgment, and a decision record needs both: the legal change and the limits placed on the authorities administering it. [3] [4]

Assembly elections returned in 2024. The National Conference won 42 seats and the BJP 29, according to the results reported by the Associated Press. The National Conference had opposed the removal of special status. Participation in the election therefore cannot simply be read as public endorsement of the 2019 decision. [5]

Statehood remained a live issue after that electoral return. On 28 September 2026, the Assembly passed a resolution asking the Union government to restore it immediately, PTI reported. Seven years after reorganisation, the elected House was still pressing for a change in the powers under which it operated. [6]