ARTICLE 370: A CONSTITUTIONAL COUP?
Here’s a balanced analysis on “Article 370: A Constitutional Coup?” exploring whether the abrogation of Article 370 by the Indian government in 2019 can be seen as a constitutional coup or a legitimate constitutional act.
Article 370: A Constitutional Coup?
Background
Article 370 granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
It allowed the state to have its own constitution, flag, and autonomy over internal matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communications.
The provision was meant to be temporary, pending the final settlement of Kashmir’s status after accession to India in 1947.
What Happened in August 2019?
The Government of India revoked Article 370 through a Presidential Order and a parliamentary resolution.
Jammu and Kashmir was reorganized into two Union Territories — Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The move was hailed by supporters as necessary for national integration and development.
Critics called it a constitutional coup, arguing it undermined federalism, democracy, and the special status of Kashmir.
Arguments Calling it a Constitutional Coup
Bypassing Constitutional Safeguards
Article 370(3) required the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K, which ceased to exist in 1957.
The government used the Governor’s recommendation (acting under President’s rule) to abrogate Article 370.
Critics argue this was a legal sleight of hand, violating the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Undermining Autonomy and Federalism
The abrogation stripped J&K of its special autonomy unilaterally.
Seen as an imposition by the Central Government, diminishing state’s rights.
Lack of Local Consent and Democratic Process
No plebiscite or local consultation was conducted.
Seen as ignoring the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiri people.
Judicial Challenge Pending
Multiple petitions challenge the abrogation in the Supreme Court.
The Court’s final verdict could determine constitutionality.
Arguments Against Calling it a Coup
Legal Validity Through Constitutional Provisions
The government claims Article 370 itself allowed its modification or abrogation through Presidential Order.
Since J&K’s Constituent Assembly no longer exists, the President could act on the advice of the Governor under Article 370(3).
Temporary and Conditional Nature of Article 370
Article 370 was always meant to be temporary.
The government argues the abrogation completes the process of full integration.
Parliamentary Approval
The move was approved by both Houses of Parliament, representing the sovereign will of the Indian people.
Potential for Development and Integration
Supporters claim abrogation removes barriers to economic growth, governance reforms, and equal rights.
Is it a Constitutional Coup?
The term “constitutional coup” suggests:
A seizure of power that violates the constitution.
Use of constitutional machinery to achieve an undemocratic or authoritarian goal.
Whether the abrogation fits this depends on legal interpretation and judicial review.
It is a grey area:
It used constitutional provisions but arguably stretched or misused them.
The lack of local democratic consent raises questions about democratic legitimacy.
Conclusion
The abrogation of Article 370 remains one of the most controversial and consequential constitutional developments in India’s recent history.
Whether it is viewed as a constitutional coup or a constitutional exercise of power depends on one’s perspective on federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, and Kashmir’s unique history.
The final judicial verdict and political discourse will shape this debate for years to come.
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments