Model Answer:
In 1947, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) joined India through the Instrument of Accession. At the time, Constitutional Assembly member Ayyangar argued that unlike other princely states, J&K was not yet ready for full integration. He emphasized that the "will of the people," expressed through the J&K Constituent Assembly, should define both the state's Constitution and the Union's jurisdiction within it.
The hope was that J&K would eventually integrate fully with India, but only when genuine peace was achieved and the state's people agreed to the arrangement. This rationale led to the inclusion of Article 370 as a "temporary provision" in the Indian Constitution, allowing space for J&K’s unique governance needs, as people in the state felt vulnerable about their identity and future.
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution establishes India as a "Union of States," not a confederation, making the Union indissoluble and prohibiting any state from seceding. Supporting this, the J&K Constitution declares that the state "is and shall continue to be" an integral part of India.
Since its introduction, Article 370 has been significantly diluted through various Presidential Orders, making most Union laws applicable to J&K. Decades ago, Nehru observed that the erosion of Article 370 had already begun, strengthening the relationship between J&K and the Union. Today, the state’s autonomy is largely symbolic, with virtually all Indian institutions encompassing J&K within their jurisdiction. Key differences remain: (1) certain rights of permanent residents and (2) non-application of emergency provisions for "internal disturbances" without state consent.
Article 370 cannot be revoked unilaterally. For revocation, a new J&K Constituent Assembly would need to be formed and must consent to the change. While Parliament can amend the Constitution to alter Article 370, such actions may be subject to judicial review.
Future Prospects:
.png)
