Article 367 is just a boring technical clause with no real power.

While it mainly deals with interpretation, it was controversially used in 2019 to help change how Article 370 was read, showing that interpretation clauses can have major legal and political consequences.

The proviso to clause (3) lets the President declare any country 'not foreign' without limits.

The President's power to do so is expressly 'subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament', meaning Parliament's laws can restrict or override such a declaration.

The Constitution of India

Article 367

Interpretation

(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under article 372, apply for the interpretation of this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India.§

(2) Any reference in this Constitution to Acts or laws of, or made by, Parliament, or to Acts or laws of, or made by, the Legislature of a State, shall be construed as including a reference to an Ordinance made by the President or, to an Ordinance made by a Governor, as the case may be.§

(3) For the purposes of this Constitution “foreign State” means any State other than India:§

Provided that, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the President may by order declare any State not to be a foreign State for such purposes as may be specified in the order.§

Why this exists

Article 367 is a technical 'housekeeping' provision. The framers didn't want to redefine every common legal word used in the Constitution, so they borrowed the General Clauses Act, 1897, which already supplied standard definitions and interpretive rules for British-Indian and post-independence statutes. Clause (2) ensures Ordinances (temporary laws made when the legislature isn't in session) are treated the same as regular laws wherever the Constitution refers to legislative Acts. Clause (3) and its proviso define 'foreign State' but allow flexibility, since India's relationships with certain neighbouring states (historically Nepal, Bhutan, and princely-state successors) sometimes required special, non-'foreign' treatment for specific legal purposes like citizenship, trade, or property rights.

How courts read it

Courts have generally treated Article 367 as a technical aid, not a source of independent rights or powers. However, it drew major attention in August 2019, when a Presidential Order under this Article was used alongside Article 370 to change how the term 'Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir' was to be read as 'Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir', which facilitated the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. This use of Article 367 to indirectly amend Article 370 was challenged before the Supreme Court, which in its 2023 judgment (In Re: Article 370) upheld the government's actions, holding that the exercise, while unusual, did not violate constitutional limits given Article 370's structure at that time.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Article 367 is just a boring technical clause with no real power.
Fact: While it mainly deals with interpretation, it was controversially used in 2019 to help change how Article 370 was read, showing that interpretation clauses can have major legal and political consequences.
Myth: The proviso to clause (3) lets the President declare any country 'not foreign' without limits.
Fact: The President's power to do so is expressly 'subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament', meaning Parliament's laws can restrict or override such a declaration.