Article 370 of the Indian Constitution

This post on  Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has been created based on article “In our Constitution, two competing visions of power” published in The Indian Express on 27th January 2025.

UPSC Syllabus topic: GS Paper 2- Polity

Context: The article provides a detailed critique and analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. It also ties the discussion to historical debates that took place during the framing of the Constitution, particularly the tensions between uniformity and diversity in federal arrangements.

What is the context of the Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 370?

1. In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, which granted Jammu and Kashmir special status.
2. While the judgment was largely discussed in political terms, the constitutional reasoning behind it was relatively overlooked.
3. This case highlighted the constitutional philosophy of “integration,” which played a pivotal role in the Court’s interpretation.

What was the Court’s constitutional reasoning regarding Article 370?

1. The Court noted that Article 370 originated from unique historical circumstances aimed at ensuring the gradual “integration” of Jammu and Kashmir into India.
2. While rejecting the government’s constitutional mechanism for the abrogation, the Court concluded that Article 370 granted the President unilateral authority to revoke the provision.
3. This interpretation involved bypassing the clause that required a recommendation from Jammu and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly.

What definition of “integration” did the Court adopt?

1. The Court implicitly defined “integration” as homogeneity, arguing that the existence of a special status for a state was incompatible with integration.
2. For the Court, true integration necessitated uniform constitutional relationships between all states and the Union.
3. The petitioners challenged the Court’s definition, arguing that integration should reflect India’s diversity and constitutional pluralism. They contended that Article 370 symbolized the recognition of India’s heterogeneity and that diversity, rather than homogeneity, was essential for true integration.

How does this debate connect to India’s constitutional history?

1. This contest mirrors earlier debates in the Constituent Assembly regarding the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, which provided special autonomous arrangements for Adivasi populations.
2. Critics feared these provisions might encourage secessionism, while leaders like Jaipal Munda defended them as expressions of coexistence and mutual respect within the Union.

What broader constitutional question does the Article 370 case highlight?

1. The case reflects the enduring tension between centralization and decentralization in India’s federal framework.
2. The Constitution has always been a site for competing visions of power: one emphasizing uniformity and centralization, and the other advocating for diversity and decentralization.

How has power distribution evolved in the Indian Constitution over 75 years?

1. Since its inception, the Indian Constitution has exhibited a tendency toward centralization.
2. This trend is partly embedded in the constitutional text and reinforced by Supreme Court judgments.
3. While such centralizing tendencies were justified in 1950, it is crucial to question whether they remain relevant in the pluralistic and diverse India of 2025.

What is the significance of debating these constitutional visions today?

1. As the Indian Constitution completes 75 years, critically examining its legacy of power distribution is essential.
2. The act of questioning whether centralization continues to serve India’s pluralistic society is the truest tribute to the Constitution and its enduring relevance.