Kashmir’s Altered Status - Legal, Constitutional, International Impacts

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T20:27:58.967316+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:09:49.300Z

KASHMIR’S ALTERED STATUS: LEGAL,

CONSTITUTIONAL, INTERNATIONAL IMPACTS Rupal Saxena, LLM, Amity University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Dr. Juhi Saxena, Assistant Professor at Amity University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

ABSTRACT

The decision by the Indian government to repeal Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gave Jammu and Kashmir exceptional autonomy for 70 years, is thoroughly examined in this research study. The paper starts by providing an overview of Article 370's historical context and the circumstances surrounding its annulment on August 5, 2019. It looks at the Indian government's legal system and processes, including as the use of legislative resolutions and presidential orders, which led to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision upholding the abrogation. With an emphasis on federalism, national unity, and the temporary vs permanent character of Article 370, the article examines the constitutional reasons for and against the annulment.

Additionally, it examines the responses from other countries and international organizations throughout the world, such as the viewpoints of China, Pakistan, the OIC, Western countries, and the UN, and assesses the effect on India's diplomatic ties with its neighbours. The study also looks at the socioeconomic and political effects on Jammu and Kashmir's citizens, including shifts in political attitude, economic growth, security conditions, and governance. By looking at special status clauses in other federal systems like Canada, Switzerland, and Spain, a comparative analysis is offered. The study concludes by summarizing the results and talking about how this crucial choice would affect South Asian stability, Indian federalism, and the region going forward.

Keywords: Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir, International Impacts HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR In 1846, the Dogra king Maharaja Gulab Singh signed the Treaty of Amritsar, which protected Jammu and Kashmir from the East India Company. After India gained its independence from British domination in August 1947, Pakistan became an independent state. The three alternatives offered to the princely states of India that were not officially a part of either India or Pakistan were to join India, stay independent, or join Pakistan. India's Home Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, tried to convince the reluctant princely kingdoms to join us. Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, meantime, successfully preserved the status quo by negotiating a standstill deal with Pakistan.

However, Hari Singh1 had to turn to India for support after Pakistani tribal terrorists attacked Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh requested military assistance from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister Patel, but only if he signed an Instrument of Accession (IOA) with India, relinquishing authority over communication, foreign policy, and defence. After India gained independence, Hari Singh signed the IOA, integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union. On October 17, 1949, Parliament adopted Article 370, granting Jammu and Kashmir unique status. This marked the culmination of a process that began in 1927.

Although a few states were represented from the beginning and actively participated in the framing of the Constitution, Jammu and Kashmir was not included in the discussions of the Indian Constituent Assembly until June 1949, when the assembly was almost finished. Finally, on October 17, 19492, Jammu and Kashmir was granted special status by the Indian government. Despite not receiving a formal invitation, all princely states that joined India were granted special status, even though Jammu & Kashmir was never compelled to sign the Instrument of Merger in accordance with Article 370 (formerly 306) of the Indian Constitution. But now, one of the most sensitive and controversial topics is giving the state special status. India's democratic leadership initially favoured the people's decision over the destiny of 468 states, leading to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947.

The state's military was unable to fight Pakistani invaders, forcing its membership to the Indian Union. The Indian Union required princely states, including Jammu and Kashmir, to sign the Instrument of Accession in 1 Sharma, S. (2019). Article 370 and its Impact on Society and Economy of Jammu and Kashmir. Shodhganga 2 Rather, T. (2020). Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India: Socio-Economic and Political Implications on Jammu and Kashmir. SSRN Electronic Journal.

1949. The Supreme Court granted Jammu and Kashmir unique status in Rahman Lagoo vs.

State of Jammu and Kashmir, upholding the legitimacy of constitutional remedies in the area. The Supreme Court confirmed that the fundamental rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir are applicable, and that Article 370 does not replace the Indian Constitution's fundamental structure. In 2015, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the People's Democratic Party (PDP) formed the first coalition administration in Jammu & Kashmir. Mehbooba Mufti became the chief minister after her father's death in 2016. However, internal conflict within the party led to the BJP breaking off its partnership with the PDP in June 2018. US President Trump volunteered to mediate the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir in May 2019. In August 2019, Mehbooba Mufti and other Kashmiri leaders were placed under house arrest, and Jammu and Kashmir was divided into two union territories.

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES The Indian Constitution is the longest in the world, with 448 articles, 12 schedules, 25 sections, and a preamble. Articles 35A and 370, out of the 448 articles, dealt with Jammu & Kashmir41. These articles are crucial to maintaining law and order in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian Constitution establishes the people's traditions, rights, responsibilities, and powers. The provisions that comprise the Constitution were modeled after a few national constitutions. The Constitution was finalized, ratified on November 26, 1949, and went into effect on January 26,

1950. Two sections of the Indian Constitution that are considered essential to the state of

Jammu and Kashmir will be discussed: Both Articles 35A and 3703. When India gained its independence in 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the former ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that the area would continue to be separate from both Pakistan and India. This fight was begun in order to rid the area of Hindu dominance because there were more Muslims living there. Maharaja Hari Singh sought help from the Indian government after he was unable to protect the state any longer. The Indian government was willing to help, and the Maharaja of Kashmir agreed to include Kashmir in India. The Indian government and the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession4.

3 Constitutional Autonomy- A Case Study of J & K- Page 13 - Dr. K. K. Wadhwa

4 Ibid

On October 17, 1949, Article 370 was introduced to the Indian Constitution5, exempting Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian Parliament's legislative powers. This provision granted J&K autonomy over state internal affairs, including the right to fly a state flag and establish a distinct constitution. The Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was given the authority to propose whether to apply or repeal Article 370 upon its creation. Despite its dissolution without proposing its repeal, Article 370 was considered a permanent part of the Indian Constitution. Residents of Jammu and Kashmir are subject to different laws, including citizenship, property ownership, and fundamental rights, under Article 370 and Article 35A. The Indian Constitution grants special rights and benefits to permanent inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 35A.

This provision was added in 1954 by the Indian president, and the meaning of "permanent resident of India" remains unchanged, even if additional provisions are added to the Constitution or other legislation. In 1846, Maharaja Gulab Singh received Jammu and Kashmir from the British Government through the Treaty of Amritsar. The state was granted Indian citizenship after Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was ratified. The Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly wished for the state to be treated differently and current legislation to take precedence. Article 35A of the Indian Constitution was created by an agreement between Sheikh Abdullah and Jawahar Lal Nehru, mandating that Indian citizenship law be applied to Jammu and Kashmir. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, formalized this accord.

This ruling gave Jammu and Kashmir the authority to determine permanent residents and their rights and benefits. Supporters argue that Article 35A aims to protect the state's identity, particularly among Muslims. In 2014, the Bhartiya Janata Party pledged to include Jammu & Kashmir into India's Union6. The party and its parent organization, RastriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS), began a campaign to repeal Article 370 after winning the election. A comprehensive review of Article 370 was long overdue and needed to be worked on in collaboration with the State of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled in October 2015 that Article 370 could not be "abrogated, abolished, or even altered. " The Indian Supreme Court declared that 5 Bhatia, K. L, Jammu and Kashmir: Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1997, p. 5.

6 "Article 370: India strips disputed Kashmir of special status". BBC News. 5 August 2019. Retrieved 19 September Article 370 has perpetual validity, as the State Constituent Assembly did not propose it before its dissolved in 1957. The Bhartiya Janata Party restated its pledge to bring Jammu and Kashmir into India in its 2019 general election platform. Since its formation in 1990, the Kashmiri Hindu organization Panun Kashmir has continuously opposed the implementation of Article 35A and criticized Article 370. The Supreme Court's verdicts indicate that Article 370 has the status of a "permanent provision" due to the dissolved State Constituent Assembly. On August 5, 2019, the BJP announced the immediate repeal of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution via executive order.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill, introduced by Home Minister Shri Amit Shah, was passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on August 6,

2019. The bill repealed Article 35A and Article 37047, which granted the state of Jammu and

Kashmir a unique status. Despite opposition from political parties, the Modi administration did not take this seriously. Former Congress senior politician Ghulam Nabi Azad called it "constitutional murder," while P. Chidambaram described it as a disastrous step and feared it would lead to India's disintegration. Articles 370 and 35-A, which granted Jammu and Kashmir special status, were to be repealed. Article 35-A, absent from the Indian Constitution of 1949, was later included in the Indian Constitution through a Presidential Order in 19547. Article 370 defines the constitutional connection between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India. India has invoked Article 370 at least 45 times to extend Indian constitutional protections to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir received the entire constitution, including all constitutional changes, in 1954.

The Indian Constitution, drafted by Article 370, covered Jammu and Kashmir in just two sections. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950, was enacted on January 26, 1950, and aimed to execute the 1952 Delhi Agreement8. It indicated topics and articles that matched the Instrument of Accession, as required by Article 370, clause b(i)50. The Union List included 38 issues for the Union to pass legislation for the state. Certain provisions from ten of the Indian Constitution's 22 sections were extended to Jammu and Kashmir, with revisions and exclusions agreed upon by the state administration. This order was replaced by the Presidential Order of 1954, which went beyond the agreement in several ways. 7Kashmirupdatereport_8july2019. PDF,https://www. ohchr. org/Documents/Countries/IN/KashmirUpdateReport_ 8July2019. pdf

8 Ibid

The Jammu PrajaParishad, supported by Ladakhi Buddhists and Hindu parties in India, agitated against the removal of the monarchy. Sheikh Abdullah began to question the merits of Kashmir's accession to India, losing support from his Cabinet colleagues. On February 6, 1954, the cleansed Constituent Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the proposals of the Basic Principles Committee and the Advisory Panel on Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Between 1956 and 1994, 47 Presidential orders were issued, making different articles of India's Constitution applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has ruled in favor of the repeal of Article 370, which granted Jammu and Kashmir significant autonomy. The decision, which was made in response to petitions against the 2019 Constitution Order, reorganized the former state into two union territories.

The court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud9, confirmed the decision and ordered assembly elections to be held by September 30, 2024. The J&K Reorganization Act of 2019, which divided Jammu and Kashmir into J&K and Ladakh, has faced challenges to its legitimacy. The decision aims to clarify the legal structure and historical relevance of Article 370. INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY AND GEOPOLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS PAKISTAN’S AND CHINA’S REACTION The Indian government's repeal of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir elicited varying responses from the international community. Bringing the region closer to the rest of India was the aim of this project. The wide range of reactions this action generated, from support to concern, was a reflection of the complex geopolitical dynamics at play.

In this analysis, we look at the responses of important global actors, the effects of their stances, and the broader implications for regional stability and international diplomacy. Pakistan, a key participant in the Kashmir dispute, fiercely opposed India's attempt to remove Article 370. The Pakistani government condemned the operation as illegal and a violation of UN resolutions on Kashmir. Pakistan's prime minister, Imran Khan, warned of potential tensions increasing and pledged to raise the issue in international forums. Tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors grew as a result of Pakistan's response, further straining their 9 "Article 370 is permanent, rules J&K High Court". The Hindu. Press Trust of India. 11 October 2015. Retrieved

25 March 2017

already precarious relationship. China, another significant player in the region, expressed concerns about the deletion of Article 370, particularly in light of its possible implications for the Chinese-bordered disputed region of Ladakh10. Beijing condemned India's actions and called for dialogue and restraint in order to resolve the dispute peacefully. In September 2019, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi addressed the UN Human Rights Council, warning against "random war" and implying that India's actions amounted to genocide. However, after withdrawing its special status for Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan seems to be reconsidering whether to challenge India at the International Court of Justice. when Pakistan will execute it, as Imran Khan initially stated.

The International Court of Justice, according to many legal experts, is just advisory on this matter and does not have the jurisdiction to hear disputes involving Kashmir. Pakistan sent its delegate back to India a week after the constitutional amendment was made, reduced its relationship with India, stopped trade with India, and began examining bilateral agreements. When a formal meeting request over Chinese Kashmir was rejected by the UN Security Council, Pakistan consented to hold informal, behind closed doors discussions. Wang Wenbin of the Chinese Foreign Ministry called India's action "illegal and invalid," but he also called for "an appropriate and peaceful solution through dialogue and consultation between the conflicting parties.

"11 UNITED STATE’S REACTION To preserve India's sovereign right to decide what its territory is, the United States urged both India and Pakistan to refrain from escalating their conflict and to resolve it amicably. While expressing hope for peace and stability in the region, President Donald Trump's administration did not take a strong stance on the legitimacy or ramifications of Article 370's revocation. POSITION OF EUROPEAN UNION Following the revocation of Article 370, the EU called for dialog and moderation between India and Pakistan. Several EU member states expressed concerns about the human rights situation in Kashmir and called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but the EU refused to take a 10 Sharma, Devika, (5 August 2019). ―The constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order,2019ǁ. 11 Jain, J. , 2021.

The second anniversary of abrogation of Article 370: Key changes made in Jammu and Kashmir in the last 2 years. unified stance on the issue. The EU's reaction exposed the group's hesitancy to handle sensitive geopolitical issues and the challenges in establishing an internal relationship. In September 2019, the European Union asked that restrictions be lifted and that the fundamental freedoms and rights of Kashmiris be respected. In 2018, a group from the European Union (EU) expressed concerns about the situation in Indian Kashmir while visiting India. Reports state that another EU MEP who stated that he wanted to visit Kashmir alone and speak openly with anyone was denied a trip. The group said that fighting terrorism was in the country's best interests and that they supported the Modi government's decision.

ISLAMIC NATIONS REACTIONS A few Islamic countries, like Iran, Turkey, and Malaysia, expressed solidarity with the Kashmiri people and condemned India's decision to remove Article 370. Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, even went so far as to call the situation in Kashmir a "massacre" and called for an international solution98. These reactions reflected broader concerns within the Muslim community over the oppression of Muslims in Kashmir and spoke to local political issues in these countries. Soon after Article 370 was changed, Prime Minister Modi received the Nishan Zayed12, the highest civilian award bestowed by the United Arab Emirates. This proves that the events in Kashmir have not affected the interests of the Prime Minister and his government.

Riyad Abbas, Syria’s special envoy to India, said India’s actions in Kashmir were justified by its right to defend its people and that the matter should be resolved through bilateral discussions. Other Gulf states, including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, avoided direct comments while Bahrain took legal action against citizens of Bangladesh and Pakistan who opposed the constitutional modifications. Except for Pakistan, every SAARC country has supported India's attempts to divide the state and impose Article 370. The foreign minister of Bhutan was quoted as saying, "For us, this is an entirely internal matter of the Government of India. " "I would also like to state that there should be peace at the borders. " This position was supported by the Maldives' declaration that "the Maldives considers the decision taken by the Government of 12 Raina, Muzaffar (7 August 2019).

"Crushing blockade on flow of information in Srinagar". The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 August 2019 India regarding Article 370 of the Indian Constitution as an internal matter. " "We believe that it is the right of every sovereign nation to amend their laws as required. " The Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs added, "The Indian Government's revocation of Article 370 is an internal matter of India. " Sri Lanka's prime minister, Ranil Wickremasinghe, posted on Twitter that "Ladakh will become an India State. " With 70% of its population professing Buddhism, Ladakh is poised to become the first state in India with the highest percentage of Buddhists.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SPECIAL AUTONOMY CLAUSES IN OTHER FEDERAL COUNTRIES An analysis of special autonomy clauses in other federal countries provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding the intricacies of the Kashmir dispute. The constitution of Canada, for instance, recognizes Quebec as a separate civilization with a distinct language and culture. Its asymmetrical federalism model, which accommodates regional differences within a single nation, is demonstrated by the specialized arrangements pertaining to language, culture, education, and its civil law system. Quebec13 maintains considerable autonomy in areas that are essential to maintaining its uniqueness, like labour and immigration, and manages its own pension plan. A different example is Switzerland, which has a Federal Constitution that guarantees a high level of cantonal autonomy.

The Swiss federation is very decentralized, with each canton having its own constitution, parliament, administration, and courts. It also retains significant authority in areas like law enforcement, healthcare, and education. There is a distinct separation of powers between the cantons and the federal government, which oversees foreign policy, defence, and currency. Although there are historical and cultural variances, Swiss federalism is generally balanced, with all 26 cantons having a comparable degree of autonomy, in contrast to Canada and India. The constitutional framework of Spain acknowledges each region's and nationality's right to self-governance. Due to historical rights and nationalist emotions, this has led to an asymmetrical federal system in which autonomous areas, like as Catalonia and the Basque Country, have more self-governance than others.

This includes autonomy over taxes, 13 Special Correspondent, ―Current Situation in Kashmir Not Good and Not Sustainable, Says Angela Merkel,ǁ The Hindu, November 2, 2019 education, and policing. The pre-annulment status in India, when Jammu & Kashmir had a unique position with higher self-governance than other states, is somewhat similar to the Spanish model, which has differing levels of autonomy for different areas.

CONCLUSION

The Indian government's annulment of Article 370, a temporary provision, has sparked significant constitutional debates, particularly regarding federalism and the lack of direct consent from the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The annulment has triggered global reactions, particularly from Pakistan and China, and raised concerns about human rights and regional stability. India's bilateral relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, and tensions with China along the border have also increased. The socio-economic and political repercussions for residents of Jammu and Kashmir have been profound, with changes in governance, contested security landscapes, and varied reactions. The annulment has shifted India away from asymmetrical federalism and towards a more centralized structure.

The long-term implications of this shift for the region, India's federal framework, and regional stability in South Asia remain to be fully observed.