The State of Jammu and Kashmir occupies a unique position in India by way of it being the only State to negotiate its terms of accession to the Indian Territory. This special status has also been conferred on the State Constitutionally by way of Art. 370, and has to a wide extent been responsible for mounting contentions between the Centre and the State. In recent times, the debate around the special status of the State has garnered swelling public attention in light of the various petitions filed in the Supreme Court, regarding the constitutional validity of Art. 370 and Art. 35A of the Indian Constitution. The question that formed the mainstay of this article was the question of permanency or transitional nature of Art. 370 and whether Art. 35A violates rights of citizens of India as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The conclusion that has been reached with respect to both these aspects is regrettably, in the affirmative. To appreciate the question of constitutional validity of both these provisions, it is essential to understand the historical events that led to the introduction of these articles in the first instance, along with legal arguments that provide explanations as to the wisdom and irrationality of their inclusion. This research article provides an outline for the same and attempts at providing a clearer presentation of the legality of the provisions themselves.
