Article 35A was a unique provision in the Indian Constitution that provided special rights and privileges to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. This
Article 35A of the Indian Constitution: A Complete Deep Dive into Its Origin, Impact, and Abrogation
When we talk about the most controversial and emotionally charged chapters in India's constitutional history, Article 35A stands right at the top of that list. For decades, this single provision shaped the lives of millions in Jammu and Kashmir, determined who could buy land in the valley, who could get a government job, and even who could call Kashmir their true home. It wasn't just a legal clause—it was a shield, a barrier, and for many, a symbol of identity and protection.
In this detailed article, we will walk through the entire journey of Article 35A—from its birth in the 1950s to its dramatic death in 2019. We will explore why it was created, what rights it gave, who it hurt, and why it finally had to go. Let's get started.
What Exactly Was Article 35A?
Before we dive into the history, let's understand what Article 35A actually meant in plain, simple words.
Article 35A was a special provision inserted into the Indian Constitution that gave the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature the exclusive power to define who were the "permanent residents" of the state. Once these permanent residents were identified, the state could grant them special rights and privileges that other Indian citizens simply could not enjoy.
Think of it this way: Article 35A created a special VIP club inside India. Only those who were born in Jammu and Kashmir or had lived there for a very long time could enter this club. Everyone else—even if they were Indian citizens—was kept outside.
The rights given to permanent residents included some very important things:
- The right to buy land and property in Jammu and Kashmir
- The right to get government jobs in the state
- The right to settle in the state
- The right to receive scholarships and financial aid from the state government
These might sound like normal rights, but in the context of Jammu and Kashmir, they were exclusive privileges. A person from Delhi, Mumbai, or Chennai could not buy land in Kashmir. A talented engineer from Bengaluru could not apply for a government job in Srinagar. A poor student from Uttar Pradesh could not get a scholarship from the Jammu and Kashmir government. Article 35A made sure of that.
What made Article 35A even more unique was how it was added to the Constitution. It was not passed by Parliament like other constitutional amendments. Instead, it was inserted through a Presidential Order in 1954, issued under the powers of Article 370. This unusual method of entry would later become one of the biggest reasons for its legal challenges.
The Historical Roots: Where Did Article 35A Come From?
To truly understand Article 35A, we need to go back in time—way back to the days when India was still a young nation finding its feet, and Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state with its own king.
- The 1927 Notification by Maharaja Hari Singh was perhaps the earliest ancestor of Article 35A. This notification created the concept of "State Subjects" and gave them special privileges, especially regarding land ownership. The idea was to protect local Kashmiris from being pushed out by outsiders—particularly Punjabis who were coming to take government jobs.
- The Instrument of Accession in 1947 changed everything. When Pakistan-backed raiders attacked Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh had to choose between joining India or Pakistan. He chose India and signed the Instrument of Accession. However, this document was special—it only gave India control over defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Everything else remained under the control of the Kashmir government. This exception laid the foundation for Kashmir's special status.
- The Delhi Agreement of 1952 was the direct trigger for Article 35A. This agreement was reached between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, who was then the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. They agreed that Indian citizenship would be extended to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but the existing laws regarding "state subjects" would continue to protect their special rights.
- The 1954 Presidential Order finally gave birth to Article 35A. President Dr. Rajendra Prasad, acting on the advice of the Nehru government, issued the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 under Article 370. This order inserted Article 35A into the Constitution without any debate in Parliament.
At the time, this seemed like a necessary compromise to keep Kashmir within India while respecting its unique history and identity. But as decades passed, the compromise began to look more like a problem.
The Actual Text of Article 35A: Reading Between the Lines
The language of Article 35A was legal and complex, but its meaning was simple and powerful. Here's what it basically said:
- No existing law in Jammu and Kashmir that defined permanent residents could be declared void just because it took away rights from other Indian citizens.
- No future law passed by the Jammu and Kashmir legislature that gave special rights to permanent residents could be challenged in court for violating the fundamental rights of non-residents.
- The special rights covered four main areas: employment under the state government, buying immovable property, settling in the state, and getting scholarships or other aid from the state government.
This was a blanket immunity. Normally, if a law violates fundamental rights like equality (Article 14), freedom of movement (Article 19), or right to property, it can be struck down by courts. But Article 35A said: "Not here. Not in Jammu and Kashmir." The state laws were protected from judicial review, no matter how discriminatory they might seem.
Who Were the Permanent Residents?
This is where things get really interesting. Who exactly got to enjoy these special privileges? Who was considered a "permanent resident" of Jammu and Kashmir?
The Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, adopted in 1956, defined a permanent resident as someone who:
- Was a state subject on May 14, 1954, or
- Had lived in the state for 10 years before that date, or
- Had lawfully acquired immovable property in the state
The state legislature could change this definition, but only with a two-thirds majority—making it quite difficult to alter.
This definition created a closed club. If your family had been in Kashmir for generations, you were in. If you had moved there recently, you were out. If you were a refugee from West Pakistan who had settled in Jammu, you were probably out. If you were a woman from Kashmir who married someone from outside, you might lose your membership—and so would your children.
The permanent resident concept was not just about residency. It was about bloodlines, history, and belonging. It was about protecting a certain way of life, a certain culture, and a certain demographic balance. But it was also about exclusion.
The Special Rights and Privileges: What Did Permanent Residents Get?
Let's break down exactly what made permanent residents so special under Article 35A:
- Land Ownership: This was the big one. Only permanent residents could buy land, houses, or any immovable property in Jammu and Kashmir. This meant that no Indian citizen from outside could invest in Kashmir real estate, start a business that required land, or even buy a vacation home in the beautiful valley. The land was locked away for locals only.
- Government Jobs: All state government jobs were reserved for permanent residents. Whether you wanted to be a teacher, a clerk, a police officer, or a high-ranking bureaucrat in the Jammu and Kashmir government, you needed that permanent resident certificate. This created a massive employment monopoly for locals.
- Scholarships and Educational Aid: The state government provided scholarships and financial assistance for higher education, but only to permanent residents. A bright student from outside Kashmir, no matter how talented or poor, could not access these benefits.
- Voting and Political Rights: Under the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, only permanent residents could vote in state elections and contest for the state legislature. This meant that even if you had lived in Kashmir for years as a non-permanent resident, you had no say in who governed the state.
- Professional Colleges: Admission to government-run professional colleges—medical colleges, engineering institutes, and other technical institutions—was largely reserved for permanent residents.
These privileges created a fortress-like protection for the locals. On one hand, it ensured that Kashmiris would not be economically displaced by wealthier outsiders. On the other hand, it created a system where equal citizens of India were treated unequally based solely on where they were born.
The Dark Side: Discrimination and Gender Bias
Article 35A was not just controversial because it excluded outsiders. It also had a dark, discriminatory side that hurt people within Jammu and Kashmir itself.
- Gender Discrimination: This was perhaps the most painful aspect of Article 35A. If a woman from Jammu and Kashmir married a non-resident man, she could lose her permanent resident status. Her children would also be denied permanent resident rights. This meant she could lose her right to inherit property, her right to government jobs, and her right to pass on these benefits to her children. However, if a man from Jammu and Kashmir married a non-resident woman, he kept all his rights. His wife could even acquire his status. This blatant gender inequality was challenged in courts multiple times. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Dr. Susheela Sawhney, did clarify that a woman does not automatically lose her status upon marrying a non-resident. But the fear and confusion persisted for decades.
- Refugee Problems: Thousands of refugees who had fled from West Pakistan and settled in Jammu were denied permanent resident status. They lived in India for generations but could not buy land, get government jobs, or access state benefits. They were effectively second-class citizens within their own country.
- Valmiki Community: The Valmiki community, brought to Jammu in 1957 to work as safai karamcharis (sanitation workers), was also denied permanent resident status. Despite living in Jammu for decades, they remained excluded from basic rights.
- Gorkhas: The Gorkha community, which had served in the army and settled in Jammu and Kashmir, faced similar discrimination.
These internal discriminations showed that Article 35A was not just about protecting Kashmir from outsiders. It was also creating hierarchies of citizenship within the state, where some people were more equal than others.
The Legal Storm: Why Was Article 35A Challenged in Court?
For years, Article 35A survived without major legal challenges. But as India's legal consciousness grew and more people began questioning discriminatory laws, Article 35A found itself in the crosshairs of constitutional scrutiny.
Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of Article 35A. The main arguments against it were:
- Unconstitutional Method of Insertion: Article 35A was added through a Presidential Order, not through a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament. Under Article 368, any change to the Constitution requires parliamentary approval. Critics argued that the President could not bypass Parliament and insert new articles into the Constitution through executive orders.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: Article 35A allowed the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to create laws that discriminated against non-residents. But the Indian Constitution guarantees Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), Article 19 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) to ALL citizens. By protecting discriminatory laws from judicial review, Article 35A effectively nullified these fundamental rights for millions of Indian citizens.
- Gender Discrimination: As discussed earlier, the gender-biased application of permanent resident laws was challenged as a violation of Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.
- No Judicial Review: Article 35A explicitly stated that laws made under it could not be challenged in court for violating fundamental rights. This immunity from judicial review was seen as an attack on the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes judicial review as an essential feature.
The Supreme Court had started hearing these petitions, and the case was being closely watched by the entire nation. But before the Court could deliver a final verdict, the government took a dramatic step that made the legal challenge irrelevant.
The Connection Between Article 35A and Article 370
You cannot understand Article 35A without understanding its parent provision: Article 370.
- Article 370 was the broader provision that gave Jammu and Kashmir its special autonomous status. It limited the application of Indian laws to the state and gave the state its own constitution, flag, and significant autonomy in internal matters.
- Article 35A was the specific offspring of Article 370. It derived its entire existence from Article 370(1)(d), which gave the President the power to modify constitutional provisions in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. Without Article 370, there would be no Article 35A.
- Article 370 was described as a "temporary provision" in the Constitution, but it remained in force for over 70 years. Article 35A, which was added later in 1954, seemed even more temporary—but it too persisted for decades.
The two articles were like two sides of the same coin. Article 370 gave Kashmir its special political status. Article 35A gave Kashmiris their special economic and social privileges. Together, they created a state within a state—a region that was part of India but not fully integrated into it.
This unique arrangement was defended by some as necessary to protect Kashmir's identity and culture. But others saw it as a constitutional anomaly that created inequality among Indian citizens and hindered the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of the country.
The Abrogation: August 5, 2019—The Day Everything Changed
The year 2019 will forever be remembered as a turning point in Kashmir's history. On August 5, 2019, the Government of India, led by the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, took a step that shook the entire nation.
- The Presidential Order: President Ram Nath Kovind issued a new Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019. This order declared that all provisions of the Indian Constitution would apply to Jammu and Kashmir without any special modifications or exceptions. This effectively made Article 370 inoperative.
- The Reorganisation Bill: The government introduced and passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 in Parliament. This bill did two massive things:
- It revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir by making Article 370 inoperative.
- It bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature).
The move was bold, controversial, and historic. Supporters hailed it as the full integration of Kashmir with India—a step that should have been taken decades ago. Critics condemned it as a unilateral assault on Kashmir's autonomy and a violation of the promises made to the Kashmiri people.
The government justified its action by arguing that:
- Article 370 was always meant to be temporary
- Article 35A was creating unconstitutional discrimination
- The special status had actually hindered development in Kashmir
- Terrorism and separatism had flourished under the cover of autonomy
- Full integration would bring investment, jobs, and prosperity to the region
The opposition argued that:
- The move was done without consulting the people of Kashmir
- It violated the spirit of federalism and democracy
- It could lead to demographic changes and loss of Kashmiri identity
- The manner of abrogation—using a Presidential Order rather than constitutional amendment—was legally questionable
What Changed After Article 35A Was Removed?
The removal of Article 35A was not just a legal change. It was a social, economic, and political earthquake that reshaped Jammu and Kashmir in fundamental ways.
- Land Ownership Opens Up: For the first time in decades, any Indian citizen can now buy land in Jammu and Kashmir. This has opened the door for investment, real estate development, and economic growth. However, agricultural land is still protected and can only be transferred to agriculturists—a provision similar to Himachal Pradesh.
- Government Jobs: The concept of "permanent residents" was replaced with "domicile". Initially, only lower-level government jobs (up to Level 4, with a salary scale of ₹25,500) were reserved for domiciled residents. Higher posts were open to all Indians. This caused massive protests, and the government had to issue a second order on April 3, 2020, reserving all government posts for domiciled residents. The domicile rules state that anyone who has resided in Jammu and Kashmir for 15 years, or studied there for 7 years and appeared for Class 10th/12th exams, can claim domicile status. Children of central government officials who have served in J&K for 10 years also get domicile status.
- Voting Rights: With the abolition of permanent resident restrictions, all Indian citizens living in Jammu and Kashmir can now vote in local and assembly elections. The Chief Election Officer expected 2 to 2.5 million new voters, though only about 93,000 new voters were actually added initially. In 2024, for the first time in 77 years, West Pakistan refugees, Valmikis, and Gorkhas were able to vote—people who had been denied this basic democratic right for generations.
- Scholarships and Education: The old scholarship restrictions are gone. Now, educational benefits are available based on domicile rather than the old permanent resident certificate.
- Economic Investment: The removal of Article 35A was expected to bring a flood of investment into Kashmir. While the reality has been more complex due to security concerns and political uncertainty, the legal barriers to investment have certainly been removed.
- Security Concerns: The abrogation was accompanied by a massive security lockdown in Kashmir, with restrictions on movement, internet shutdowns, and detention of political leaders. The government argued these measures were necessary to prevent violence and maintain order. Critics called it an unacceptable curtailment of civil liberties.
The Chief Justice's Powerful Words on Article 35A
In 2023, as the Supreme Court was hearing challenges to the abrogation of Article 370, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud made some remarkable observations about Article 35A that captured its essence perfectly.
He said that Article 35A gave special rights to permanent residents while virtually taking away the rights of non-residents. These included the right to equal opportunity in state employment, the right to acquire property, and the right to settle in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Chief Justice noted that Article 35A had granted immunity from judicial review to these special privileges. This meant that even if the laws were discriminatory, no court could strike them down for violating fundamental rights like Article 14 (Equality), Article 19 (Freedom of Movement), or Article 21 (Right to Life).
"This artificially created class of 'permanent residents' alienated people who did not fall within the category," the Chief Justice observed. He called it "unthinkable in a constitutional democracy" that such a provision could exist for decades.
These words from the highest judicial authority in India sum up the constitutional tragedy of Article 35A. It was a provision that created two classes of citizens within one country, and it took nearly 65 years to finally correct this anomaly.
Why Did Article 35A Matter So Much?
Article 35A was never just about legal technicalities. It was about identity, fear, and protection.
For the supporters of Article 35A, it was a necessary shield. They argued that:
- Kashmir had a unique culture and history that needed protection
- Without such safeguards, wealthy outsiders would buy up all the land and displace locals
- The demographic balance of the Muslim-majority region would be altered
- The special status was the price of Kashmir's accession to India and had to be honored
For the opponents of Article 35A, it was a discriminatory relic. They argued that:
- It violated the basic principle of equality among citizens
- It created a privileged class within India
- It prevented economic development and investment in Kashmir
- It was used to deny rights to women, refugees, and marginalized communities
- It was never passed by Parliament and was therefore illegitimate
Both sides had valid points. The challenge was finding a balance between protecting local identity and upholding constitutional equality. The abrogation of 2019 chose the side of equality, but the debate about whether this was the right choice continues.
The Road Ahead: What Happens Now?
With Article 35A gone, Jammu and Kashmir is undergoing a massive transformation. But the journey is far from over.
- Domicile vs. Permanent Resident: The new domicile system is more inclusive than the old permanent resident system, but it still provides protection to locals. The 15-year residency requirement ensures that not just anyone can walk in and claim benefits immediately.
- Economic Development: The government has been pushing for investment in Kashmir, promoting tourism, and trying to create jobs. However, security challenges and political uncertainty remain significant hurdles.
- Political Representation: The bifurcation into two Union Territories and the delay in holding assembly elections have been criticized by many Kashmiris who feel disenfranchised.
- Legal Challenges: The abrogation itself has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and while the Court has upheld the government's action, the legal and political debate continues.
- Identity and Culture: The biggest question remains: Can Kashmir's unique identity and culture survive without the legal protections of Article 35A? Or will integration bring prosperity without erasing identity?
Only time will tell the full answer to these questions. But one thing is certain: the era of Article 35A is over, and a new chapter in Kashmir's history has begun.
Conclusion: A Chapter Closed, But the Story Continues
Article 35A was one of the most unique, controversial, and consequential provisions in the Indian Constitution. For 65 years, it shaped the lives of millions, determined who could belong to Kashmir and who could not, and created a system of privileges that was both protective and discriminatory.
Its origin lay in the complex history of Kashmir's accession to India. Its survival depended on the political compromises of successive governments. Its death came suddenly and dramatically on August 5, 2019, when the government decided that the time for special status was over.
Whether you view Article 35A as a necessary protection for a vulnerable region or as an unconstitutional barrier to equality, its impact on Indian constitutional history is undeniable. It taught us that constitutional provisions can be tools of both inclusion and exclusion. It showed us that even in a democracy, some citizens can be more equal than others. And it reminded us that constitutional anomalies, however well-intentioned, cannot last forever.
Today, as Jammu and Kashmir integrates more fully with India, the ghost of Article 35A still haunts the region. The fears of demographic change, the hopes of economic prosperity, the pain of lost autonomy, and the promise of equal rights—all these emotions swirl together in the Kashmir valley.
The article may be gone, but the debate it sparked will continue for generations. And that, perhaps, is the true legacy of Article 35A—not just as a legal provision, but as a mirror that reflected the deepest tensions between identity and integration, autonomy and unity, protection and equality.
Sources and References
- Testbook IAS Preparation - Article 35A: Historical Background, Key Features & Legal Challenges https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/article-35a
- Wikipedia - Article 35A of the Constitution of India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitution_of_India
- SSRN Academic Paper - A Study with Special Reference to Article 35A of the Constitution https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4008229_code4930976.pdf
- Rostrum Legal - Article 35A: A Law of Vexed Origin https://www.rostrumlegal.com/article-35a-a-law-of-vexed-origin/
- The Leaflet - Revisiting the Special Status: The Constitutionality of Article 35A https://theleaflet.in/equality/revisiting-the-special-status-the-constitutionality-of-article-35a
- iPleaders Blog - From the Creation of Article 370 and 35A to Abolition https://blog.ipleaders.in/from-the-creation-of-article-370-and-35a-to-abolition/
- The Hindu - Article 35A took away fundamental rights while giving special rights to permanent residents of J&K, says CJI https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article-35a-took-away-fundamental-rights-while-giving-special-rights-to-permanent-residents-of-jk-says-cji/article67244792.ece
- Indian Kanoon - Article 35A in Constitution of India https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131052924/
- ResearchGate - Article 370 and 35A: Origin, Provisions, and the Politics of Contestation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347218940_Article_370_and_35A_Origin_Provisions_and_the_Politics_of_Contestation
- KIIR - Legal Implications of the Abrogation of Article 370 and 35A https://www.kiir.org.pk/blogs/legal-implications-of-the-abrogation-of-article-370-and-35a-a-review-of-court-cases-and-judgments-1704
- CISSAJK - Abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A: Policy Options for Pakistan https://strategicperspectives.cissajk.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Abrogation-of-Article-370-and-35-A-Policy-Options-for-Pakistan.pdf
- Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Pakistan - 5 August Indian Nefarious Designs https://moib.gov.pk/Pages/1209/KashmirSiegeDay
COMMENTS