The abrogation of Article 370 was constitutionally valid but politically contentious.

Q. The abrogation of Article 370 was constitutionally valid but politically contentious. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 370, placed in Part XXI of the Constitution as a "temporary provision", was rendered inoperative on 5 August 2019 through a Presidential Order and the J&K Reorganisation Act [1][2]. Courts have settled its legality; the federal and political argument it triggered remains open.

Grounds of constitutional validity - Temporariness: the provision's own location and heading marked it transitional, meant to lapse once J&K's Constituent Assembly decided; it was never a permanent guarantee like Article 371 [1]. - Route used: no Article 368 amendment was required — Article 370(3) allows the President to declare the article inoperative on Parliament's recommendation [1]. - Judicial endorsement: a five-judge Constitution Bench (11 December 2023) unanimously upheld the abrogation, holding that J&K retained no element of sovereignty after accession and that its asymmetry was a transitional arrangement [3]. - Reorganisation power: Parliament's competence to create the UTs of J&K (with legislature) and Ladakh (without legislature) flows from its ordinary territorial powers [2].

Sources of political contention - Consent deficit: the state was under President's Rule, with Parliament substituting for the elected legislature's concurrence — criticised as weakening the consultative spirit of federalism [2]. - Downgrading of statehood: converting a state into a Union Territory, with a Lieutenant Governor holding decisive executive authority, constrains the elected government and is unprecedented [2]. - Contested development rationale: the Centre linked abrogation to investment and integration [4], while J&K's Chief Minister has called it the "biggest policy mistake", arguing Article 370's clauses never caused underdevelopment [5]. - Social anxieties: simultaneous removal of Article 35A ended differential residency rights, raising demographic concerns in the Valley and differing expectations in Jammu and Ladakh [4].

Constitutional validity answers the question of power, not of persuasion; legitimacy must still be earned politically. The Supreme Court itself directed early restoration of statehood and timely elections, both markers of the way forward [3]. Restoring statehood on a clear timeline, while deepening grassroots governance, would align the decision with cooperative federalism and democratic accountability.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Government brings Resolution to Repeal Article 370 of the Constitution — PIB, 5 Aug 2019 — Article 370's temporary character and the Article 370(3) Presidential-notification route 2. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 — PRS Legislative Research — bifurcation into UT of J&K (with legislature) and UT of Ladakh (without), LG-led administration, passage during President's Rule 3. Supreme Court of India, judgment of 11 December 2023 (2023 INSC 1058) — five-judge bench upholding abrogation, no residual sovereignty, direction on statehood restoration and elections 4. MHA Press Release on J&K Decisions, 6 August 2019 — Government's integration and development rationale; removal of Article 35A residency privileges 5. The Hindu Huddle 2026 report — J&K CM Omar Abdullah on Article 370 abrogation, June 2026 — "biggest policy mistake" remark and rejection of the Article 370–underdevelopment link