Question

Critically analyse the Supreme Court’s ruling on the abrogation of Article 370 (2023).

Hint:

When analysing Art. 370: (1) Temporary provision, (2) Presidential modification powers, (3) Role of Constituent Assembly, (4) Federalism implications.

Answer 1

The 2023 judgment in In Re: Article 370 is one of the most consequential federalism decisions in modern India. The Supreme Court upheld the 2019 Presidential Orders that effectively abrogated Article 370 and reorganised Jammu & Kashmir into two Union Territories.
A critical analysis requires examining constitutional reasoning, federalism implications, and doctrinal concerns.
1. Court’s Core Holding: Article 370 was never meant to be permanent
The Court emphasized:

Article 370 was labelled a “temporary provision”.
The President had the power to modify or cease it under Article 370(3).
The “Constituent Assembly of J & K” ceased to exist, but this did not freeze the President’s power.
This interpretation allowed the Union to unilaterally abrogate Article 370.
2. Justification Using Sovereignty and Integration The Court held that:
“Article 370 was an instrument meant to facilitate the integration of J & K with India, not to provide autonomous sovereignty.”
Hence, the Union had broad authority to reshape the constitutional relationship.
3. Presidential Power to Act During President’s Rule
One of the most controversial aspects was the Court’s acceptance that:
“Parliament acting on behalf of the State Legislature under President’s Rule can recommend abrogation of Article 370.”
Critics argue:

The State Legislature cannot perform the role of the Constituent Assembly.
Using President’s Rule to eliminate a State’s special status risks abuse of emergency powers.
This expands the Union’s authority dramatically at the cost of federalism.
4. Reorganisation of J & K into UTs
The Court upheld the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh but left open the question of whether a full State can be converted into a Union Territory. Some argue this undermines the basic federal structure because it:

allows the Union to downgrade any State’s status,
weakens State autonomy,
creates a precedent for centralisation.
5. Critics’ Concerns: Federalism and Democratic Process
Scholars argue the ruling:

weakens asymmetric federalism—an important tool in managing diversity,
dilutes Art. 356 safeguards by allowing major constitutional changes during President’s Rule,
legitimises unilateral central actions without State consent.
6. Strengths of the Judgment

Restores constitutional clarity on the temporary nature of Article 370.
Reinforces territorial integrity and integration.
Closes ambiguities persisting since 1954.
7. Weaknesses

Expands Union power at the expense of federalism (a basic structure component).
Normalises the use of President’s Rule for permanent constitutional changes.
Does not adequately justify replacing a Constituent Assembly with Parliament.
Conclusion
The ruling restores constitutional uniformity but raises serious questions about:

the balance of power between Centre and States,
democratic legitimacy of major constitutional alterations during President’s Rule,
the future of asymmetric federalism in India.
\[ \boxed{The judgment is doctrinally coherent but institutionally troubling for Indian federalism.} \]