"The abrogation of Article 370 was constitutionally valid but politically contentious." Critically examine the constitutional mechanism used and its implications for federalism in India.

Article 370, placed in Part XXI ("Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions"), limited Parliament's legislative reach over Jammu & Kashmir. Its removal on 5 August 2019 was upheld by the Supreme Court in December 2023 [2], yet the route taken and its federal consequences remain politically disputed.

The constitutional mechanism

• No Article 368 amendment was used. The President acted under Art. 370(3), on Parliament's recommendation, after the Constitution (Application to J&K) Order, 2019 superseded the 1954 Order and applied the entire Constitution to J&K [1][3].
• Parliament was treated as substituting for the dissolved J&K Constituent Assembly (defunct since 1956) — the pivot of the legal controversy.
• The J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 simultaneously bifurcated the State into the UT of J&K (with legislature) and the UT of Ladakh (without), repealing 153 State laws and extending 106 central laws [4].

Why it is held valid

• Art. 370 was textually temporary; the Court held J&K retained no residual sovereignty after accession, so its asymmetry was a political arrangement, not an entrenched right [2].
• The Court directed restoration of statehood and elections by 30 September 2024, duly held.

Federal concerns it raises

• Downgrading a State to a UT without its legislature's consent — the Assembly being under President's Rule — suggests Union power can reshape a State's very existence.
• It weakens asymmetric federalism, unsettling comparable guarantees under Art. 371 series for the North-East.
• Governance friction persists: an elected Chief Minister works under a powerful Lieutenant Governor, and the demand for statehood remains the elected government's central ask.

Constitutional validity and political legitimacy are distinct tests; the former is settled, the latter is earned. Early restoration of full statehood, as the Court itself urged, and consultative use of Union powers over States would align the decision with the federal structure the Constitution treats as basic — converting a contested act into a durable settlement.