The Constitution of India
Article 370
Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, —
(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to —
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation. — For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;
(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;
(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order1 specify:
Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.
(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
Why this exists
When the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in October 1947, its Maharaja signed an Instrument of Accession covering only defence, foreign affairs, and communications — not full integration like other states. Article 370 was drafted as a 'temporary' bridge: it preserved J&K's autonomy on most subjects, letting Parliament legislate further only with the State government's consent, pending a J&K Constituent Assembly that would decide the State's final constitutional relationship with India. The State's Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1957 without recommending the article's repeal, leaving its long-term status legally contested for decades.
How courts read it
Courts initially treated Article 370 as a functioning, substantive part of the Constitution rather than a dead letter — in cases like Prem Nath Kaul v. State of J&K (1959) and Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K (1968), the Supreme Court examined the President's powers of modification under it. In State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta (2016), the Court held that despite being titled 'temporary,' Article 370 had acquired a permanent character due to the dissolution of J&K's Constituent Assembly without recommending its removal. This changed dramatically when, in 2019, the President issued orders (under clause 1(d)) applying the entire Constitution to J&K and, with Parliament acting as a substitute for the State's concurrence during President's Rule, effectively nullified the special status; J&K was also reorganised into two Union Territories under a separate Act. This process was challenged, and in December 2023, in the case widely known as *In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution*, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation, holding that Article 370 was always a temporary, transitional provision and that the President's actions were constitutionally valid.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir complete independence from India.
Fact: J&K was fully part of India from 1947 onward; Article 370 only limited how much of the Indian Constitution and Parliament's laws automatically applied there, not India's sovereignty over the State. - Myth: Article 370 could never be removed because it was permanent.
Fact: The article itself (clause 3) always contained a mechanism for the President to end it, and courts eventually held in 2023 that this mechanism was validly used in 2019. - Myth: Article 370 and Article 35A are the same provision.
Fact: Article 35A was a separate provision added later by a Presidential Order under Article 370(1)(d); it dealt with defining 'permanent residents' and their special rights, and was removed alongside the 2019 changes.