Q1. Article 370 was envisaged as a temporary provision, yet it became the fulcrum of a constitutional debate on federalism and integration. Discuss.

(GS Paper II – Polity & Constitution)

Model Answer:

Introduction:

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution conferred special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, reflecting its unique accession terms post-independence. Though labeled as a “temporary provision,” its application and eventual abrogation have been at the heart of debates on constitutional morality, federal structure, and national integration.

Body:

• Temporary in Nature:

  • The term “temporary” in the marginal note of Article 370 signifies that it was intended as an interim arrangement until the J&K Constituent Assembly finalized the constitutional relationship with India.

  • This was acknowledged by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar in the Constituent Assembly Debates.

• Gradual Erosion of Autonomy:

  • Through Presidential Orders under Article 370(1)(d), most provisions of the Indian Constitution were extended to J&K over time.

  • Nearly 94 out of 97 Union List subjects became applicable to J&K.

• Federalism vs. Integration:

  • India is a quasi-federal state with unitary bias.

  • While federalism suggests accommodation of diversity, Article 370 was viewed both as an enabler of asymmetrical federalism and a symbol of alienation.

  • Its abrogation in 2019 triggered debates on central overreach vs. complete integration.

• Judicial Viewpoints:

  • In Sampat Prakash (1970), SC upheld the President’s power to continue modifying Article 370 post the J&K Constituent Assembly’s dissolution.

  • In Santosh Gupta (2017), SC clarified that J&K had no vestige of sovereignty outside the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion:

While Article 370 was meant to be temporary, it acquired a political and emotional permanence over decades. Its abrogation has realigned the constitutional order with the Union’s idea of unity, though it continues to test India’s ability to balance legal integrity with democratic legitimacy and regional aspirations.

Q2. Critically analyze the legal arguments surrounding the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 in light of the doctrine of basic structure and President’s powers.

(GS Paper II – Constitution & Judiciary)

Model Answer:

Introduction:

The abrogation of Article 370 via the Presidential Order of 5th August 2019 and subsequent parliamentary legislation altered the legal status of Jammu & Kashmir. This has triggered intense scrutiny regarding constitutional propriety, separation of powers, and the doctrine of basic structure.

Body:

• Legal Basis of Abrogation:

  • Article 370(3) allows the President, with recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K, to declare the Article inoperative.

  • Since the Constituent Assembly dissolved in 1957 without such recommendation, the Union substituted it with the J&K Legislative Assembly, which was under President’s Rule in 2019.

  • Critics argue this was legally untenable as the Constituent Assembly and Legislative Assembly are not interchangeable.

• Presidential Powers vs. Legislative Mandate:

  • Under Article 356, Parliament exercises the powers of the state legislature. Thus, approval via Parliament during President’s Rule was deemed sufficient by the Centre.

  • SC in Sampat Prakash (1970) upheld the continued use of Article 370 powers post-1957.

• Doctrine of Basic Structure:

  • Some argue that Article 370 was part of the federal structure, and its revocation violates the basic structure doctrine.

  • However, Presidential Orders under Article 370 are not constitutional amendments under Article 368, hence not bound by the basic structure test (Kesavananda Bharati case applies to Article 368).

• Judicial Precedents Supporting Flexibility:

  • Puranlal Lakhanpal (1961) and Sant Singh (1959) upheld the President’s power to “modify” includes amend, enlarge, or even abrogate.

Conclusion:

The abrogation of Article 370 raises fundamental questions about constitutional process and political will. While legally defensible through Presidential powers and past judgments, it underscores the need for judicial clarity on whether such transformative changes respect both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Q3. How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 370 in past cases? Do these interpretations justify its abrogation?

(GS Paper II – Indian Constitution & Judiciary)

Model Answer:

Introduction:

Article 370 has been the subject of multiple judicial interpretations by the Supreme Court, shaping its scope, function, and the nature of the relationship between the Union and Jammu & Kashmir. These rulings form the foundation for understanding the legality of its abrogation in 2019.

Body:

• Key Supreme Court Judgments:

  1. Puranlal Lakhanpal vs. President of India (1961):

     • Held that the power to modify under Article 370 includes the power to enlarge or alter provisions.

     • Set precedent for constitutional evolution in J&K through Presidential Orders.

  2. Sampat Prakash vs. State of J&K (1970):

     • Upheld that Article 370 remains in force even after the J&K Constituent Assembly dissolved in 1957.

     • President continues to have modification powers under Article 370(1).

  3. State Bank of India vs. Santosh Gupta (2017):

     • Stated that J&K does not have sovereignty, and the Indian Constitution is the supreme legal document.

     • Reiterated that J&K’s special status is subject to the constitutional framework of India.

  4. Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo vs. State of J&K (1972):

     • Held that “Sadar-i-Riyasat” could be replaced with “Governor” by a Presidential Order under Article 370, reflecting flexibility in interpretation.

• Interpretative Support for Abrogation:

  • The consistent judicial view has been that Presidential Orders under Article 370 are legitimate tools for altering Centre-State relations in J&K.

  • No ruling has ever declared Article 370 to be permanent or inviolable.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s historical interpretation of Article 370 validates the progressive extension of Indian laws to J&K. While the political rationale for abrogation is debated, the judicial trend supports the constitutional method adopted for redefining J&K’s status within the Indian Union.

Q4. The abrogation of Article 370 is a turning point in India’s federal structure. Evaluate its impact on cooperative federalism.

(GS Paper II – Federalism)

Model Answer:

Introduction:

India’s federalism is described as quasi-federal, with a strong Centre and weak states. The revocation of Article 370 in 2019, which dismantled the unique constitutional status of Jammu & Kashmir, has profound implications for the theory and practice of cooperative federalism.

Body:

• Impact on Asymmetrical Federalism:

  • Article 370 was a prime example of asymmetrical federalism, allowing different levels of autonomy for different states.

  • Its removal has reduced the diversity within Indian federalism, making it more uniform but less flexible.

• Process and Concerns:

  • The use of President’s Rule to gain legislative consent raises questions about the autonomy of state institutions.

  • Critics claim this sets a precedent for unilateral action by the Centre, weakening federal principles.

• Centralization of Power:

  • The bifurcation of J&K into two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh) without a formal State Assembly’s consent further highlights central dominance.

  • It has triggered fears among other states with strong regional identities (e.g. Nagaland, Mizoram).

• Implications for Cooperative Federalism:

  • Trust deficit between Centre and regions could widen.

  • Undermines the spirit of consultation, cooperation, and consensus, which are foundational to cooperative federalism.

• Positive Outcomes:

  • Brings uniformity in legal framework, simplifies governance, and ensures equal rights for all Indian citizens in the region.

  • Potentially paves the way for development and integration.

Conclusion:

While the abrogation of Article 370 aims at greater national unity, it also challenges the principles of consensual federalism. For cooperative federalism to thrive, future Centre-State interactions must prioritize dialogue over dominance.