India Explained
ImplementedBJPNarendra Modi

Abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir

In August 2019 the President ended the special constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir and Parliament split the state into two Union Territories; the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation in 2023.

Article 370 & statehood, Centre-State relations

Facts

  • On 5 August 2019 a Presidential order and a resolution moved in the Rajya Sabha by Home Minister Amit Shah declared that all clauses of Article 370 except clause (1) cease to operate and all provisions of the Constitution apply to Jammu and Kashmir; the Rajya Sabha approved the resolution by voice vote [3].
  • The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 was introduced and passed in the Rajya Sabha on 5 August and passed by the Lok Sabha on 6 August 2019. It created the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir with a legislature and the Union Territory of Ladakh (Leh and Kargil) without one [1].
  • Per PRS, the Act provided a 107-seat Jammu and Kashmir Assembly (24 seats kept vacant for Pakistan-occupied areas), extended 106 central laws to both territories, repealed 153 state laws and left 166 state laws in force; the Rajya Sabha vote on the Bill was reported as 125 in favour and 61 against [1][3]. Lok Sabha tallies differ between media reports.
  • On 11 December 2023 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the abrogation. It held Article 370 was a temporary provision, that Jammu and Kashmir had no internal sovereignty, that the President could notify under Article 370(3) that the Article ceases to exist without the state government's concurrence, and upheld the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh [2].
  • The Court directed that statehood be restored 'as soon as possible' and that Assembly elections be held by 30 September 2024; it did not decide the validity of reorganising the state into the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and Justice Kaul's concurring opinion suggested a truth and reconciliation commission [2]. Review petitions were dismissed on 22 May 2024 [2].
  • In August 2025 a bench headed by CJI B.R. Gavai gave the Solicitor General eight weeks to take instructions on petitions seeking restoration of statehood; it observed that ground realities must be considered. The petitions were listed again on 10 October 2025, with no Union response reported at that time. Later developments were not verified [5].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • Amit Shah told the Rajya Sabha, as reported, that Article 370 was a temporary provision that had prevented full integration of the state, and that there would be no 'two flags, two Constitutions' [3].
  • He attributed a lack of development and corruption to the earlier arrangement and asked why development benefits had not reached ordinary people in the state, as reported [3].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • Opposition parties disputed the move at the time; leaders such as Ghulam Nabi Azad raised the communications lockdown in the House, and former Chief Ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti were placed under house arrest, as reported [3].
  • Petitioners seeking statehood argue that continued delay conflicts with federalism, a basic structure feature, and with the Court's 2023 direction [5].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Reported decline in militancy-related violence in the following years.A July 2024 Lok Sabha reply by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as reported, gave 228 terrorist-initiated incidents and 146 deaths (91 security personnel, 55 civilians) in 2018 for the erstwhile state, and 46 incidents and 44 deaths (30 security personnel, 14 civilians) in 2023 for the Union Territory; the two figures cover different administrative units and attribution of the decline to the 2019 change is contested [4].
  • Central laws were extended to the territory.PRS records 106 central laws extended, including the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and the repeal of 153 state laws [1].

Concerns (3)

  • Statehood had not been restored as of the latest verified report, despite the Supreme Court's 2023 direction to do so 'as soon as possible'.August and October 2025 hearings on statehood petitions; the Court asked the Union to take instructions [5].
  • Restrictions on communications and movement after 5 August 2019 were challenged in court.In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (January 2020) the Supreme Court held that indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible and that suspension orders must be proportionate, temporary and open to judicial review [6].
  • Contested legal process: the Court held the President could act without the state government's concurrence, while the reorganisation into Union Territories was left undecided.11 December 2023 judgment as reported: Article 370(3) holding upheld; validity of reorganising the state into the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir not adjudicated [2].

Evidence points

+1.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+1 to +2
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +0.5A 0B +1
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +0.5A 0B +1
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +0.5A +1B 0
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean −1.0A −1B −1
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +1.0A +2B 0Scorers differ

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Militancy incidents fell, but attribution is contested, statehood remains unrestored, communications restrictions were challenged, and the Court upheld the abrogation.

Scorer B. Violence figures fell but attribution is contested, statehood is unrestored, and the Supreme Court upheld the step while communication restrictions were challenged.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Until 2019 Jammu and Kashmir operated under Article 370 and the 1954 Presidential order, with a constitutional status different from other states; the state also recorded high militancy-related fatalities in 2018.
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Shocks considered
covid-2020
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are +2 and +1. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The 2019 decision had two parts: an order under Article 370(3) ending the Article’s operation, and a statute dividing the former state into two Union Territories. The state was then under President’s rule, so Parliament exercised the powers of the state legislature.

The Supreme Court’s December 2023 judgment held the first step valid and upheld the creation of Ladakh as a Union Territory. On the second step, the Court recorded that statehood should be restored as soon as possible and set an election deadline, but did not rule on whether the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was validly created.

Supporters, including the Union government, say the change completed constitutional integration and improved security and development. Critics, including opposition parties and petitioners, say the manner of the change bypassed the state’s elected institutions and that statehood has been delayed. Security statistics are frequently cited by both sides; the figures above come from a single parliamentary reply, cover different administrative units in 2018 and 2023, and do not by themselves establish cause.

The outcome of the 2024 Assembly elections and events after October 2025 were not verified for this entry.

Source note: no primary document (statute text, Gazette notification, court judgment or official dataset) is listed for this entry; its sources are bill summaries, legal-news reports, encyclopaedic or commentary pieces. Confidence is therefore set to low until the primary text is checked.

Sources

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    States Reorganisation Act 1956

    Parliament redrew India's state boundaries largely along linguistic lines in 1956, replacing the Part A to D classification with 14 states and 6 union territories.

    Evidence points +15.5 (range +15.0 to +16.0)

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

    The Act created a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in States to inquire into corruption allegations against public servants, including the Prime Minister with safeguards. The first Lokpal took office in 2019.

    Evidence points +1.5 (range +1.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    Right to Information Act, 2005

    Parliament created an enforceable right to request records held by public authorities, with Central and State Information Commissions as appellate bodies. Backlogs and a 2019 amendment are debated.

    Evidence points +15.0 (range +15.0 to +15.0)