{"id":460,"date":"2026-04-04T10:03:52","date_gmt":"2026-04-04T10:03:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460"},"modified":"2026-04-04T10:04:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T10:04:26","slug":"sovereignty-on-trial-the-aftermath-of-article-370","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460","title":{"rendered":"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

[By Harshita Saraf<\/a>, third year B.A. LL.B. student at WBNUJS, Kolkata]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I.      <\/strong>The Prism of Sovereignty: How Jurisprudence Shapes Legal Interpretation<\/strong><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps, there is no single, objective reality to any fact; it is shaped by the narrative through which it is told. Law, too, exists in a similar interpretive space, where every legal event is as much a reflection of the prevailing social beliefs and jurisprudential frameworks as it is of the black letter. The relationship between law and jurisprudence, however, is far from a one-way street\u2014it is symbiotic, with judicial decisions both drawing upon and redefining the validity of competing jurisprudential theories.  As Upendra Baxi observes, constitutional interpretation in India is deeply linked to the evolving socio-political realities and the creative role of the judiciary.[i]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is against this backdrop that the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution retains significance. The debate surrounding its validity is not merely political, but equally jurisprudential\u2014it inevitably questions whether the Parliament possessed \u201csovereign\u201d powers to enact it unilaterally.[ii]<\/a> While the formal order of abrogation may have been delivered in 2019,[iii]<\/a> it continues to be a critical point of inquiry due to the competing claims it has provoked across different jurisprudential schools. While some defend the Parliament as an absolute sovereign, scholars such as M.P. Jain argue that the Constitution creates a system of \u201climited sovereignty,\u201d where even the Parliament\u2019s powers are circumscribed by constitutional structure and judicial review.[iv]<\/a> Thus, the discourse on Article 370 reveals a larger truth\u2014without the notion of sovereignty, modern political action would become difficult to comprehend, let alone justify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper examines the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution through the lens of various theorists of jurisprudence. It engages with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the validity of the abrogation and reconciles various differing theoretical views to recommend a way forward for future cases involving an interplay of jurisprudence and law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II.   <\/strong>Who Holds Power: Tracing the Evolution of Sovereign Thought<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Till before the rise of democratic governance in the 20th<\/sup> century, theories of sovereignty were marked by the distinct tendency to locate sovereignty in an individual. For instance, John Austin, in his Command Theory,[v]<\/a> defines the sovereign as a person who receives habitual obedience from the bulk of the population, but who does not habitually obey any other earthly person or institution. Austin visualises a highly centralised model of authority where the sovereign is placed at the apex of the political hierarchy, commanding obedience from all, yet himself being immune from obedience to any higher authority.[vi]<\/a> On the other hand, the Pure Theory of Law by Hans Kelsen  shifts the focus from \u201cwho\u201d makes the law to whether a law can be traced back to a higher norm within a structured normative system.[vii]<\/a> At the apex of this system lies the grundnorm<\/em> (basic law), and so long as a law conforms to the underlying normative framework established by the grundnorm<\/em>, they are considered as legitimate expressions of sovereign power within Kelsen\u2019s theory.[viii]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the advent of the 20th<\/sup> century, scholars such as Carl Schmitt began to propound exception-based theories to sovereignty, viewing the sovereign as the decision-making authority during times of crisis.[ix]<\/a> Schmitt famously stated, “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”[x]<\/a> To Schmitt, the sovereign is defined not by a norm of obedience, but by the ability to suspend the order of ordinary law under emergency conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

III. Article 370 in India: How It Came to Be and How It Was Undone<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 From Accession to Autonomy: The Genesis of Article 370<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

At the time of India\u2019s independence, the princely State of Jammu & Kashmir (\u201cJ&K<\/strong>\u201d) was under the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh.[xi]<\/a> On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession which ceded control of defence, foreign affairs, and communications to the Indian republic.[xii]<\/a> In return, the State retained its autonomy in other areas. The Indian Constitution, when enacted in 1950, preserved this arrangement through Article 370 that awarded special status to J&K, albeit termed as a \u201ctemporary provision\u201d.[xiii]<\/a> Importantly, Article 370 itself provided that it could not be amended or revoked other than by J&K\u2019s Constituent Assembly.[xiv]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

J&K\u2019s own Constituent Assembly was formed in 1951 to prepare a constitution for the State.[xv]<\/a> However, it was dissolved in 1957, without having made any change or recommendations for the amendment of Article 370.[xvi]<\/a> Consequently, Article 370 remained in operation, notwithstanding its status as “temporary” article.[xvii]<\/a> In theory, the Constituent Assembly was meant to conclusively decide the fate of Article 370; hence, the fact that the Assembly dissolved itself without amending or abrogating Article 370 elevated its status to a permanent provision.[xviii]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pre-Abrogation Politics<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

However, around 2018, the political landscape in J&K became precarious. The state elections led to a hung assembly, and subsequently the BJP coalition government fell apart.[xix]<\/a> On June 20, 2018, the Governor of J&K imposed Governor’s Rule under Article 92 of J&K\u2019s Constitution for a period of 6 months,[xx]<\/a> which was later replaced by President\u2019s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution.[xxi]<\/a> Under President\u2019s Rule, J&K had no legislative assembly in session, and the powers of the local assembly were vested in the Indian Parliament, acting through the Union Home Minister and the Governor.[xxii]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On August 5, 2019, the President passed Constitution Order 272, which resulted in J&K\u2019s “Constituent Assembly” being read as the “Legislative Assembly” instead.[xxiii]<\/a> This, in turn, meant that requirement of the “concurrence of the Constituent Assembly” under Article 370 could be satisfied through the consent of the State Legislative Assembly. However, owing to President\u2019s Rule in J&K, the State Legislative Assembly had been taken over by the Parliament. The dichotomy lies in the fact that the Parliament was left facing only one obstacle to abrogating Article 370: its own consent. Ultimately, the special status endowed upon J&K through Article 370 was abrogated through a second constitutional order recommended by the Parliament.[xxiv]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. Command, Norm, Will and Exception: Theorists on the Abrogation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Command Theory: Austin<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In determining the validity of any law, Austin\u2019s primary question would be: Who is the sovereign? In India’s constitutional order, who is habitually obeyed by all but obeys none?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When looking at Article 370 as it was originally written, the relevant sovereign for the purpose of amending Article 370 would have been J&K\u2019s Constituent Assembly. If J&K\u2019s Constituent Assembly is deemed as the sovereign with respect to Article 370, then it would effectively mean that in 2019, there existed no sovereign that could legally sanction the abrogation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, even if the Indian Parliament is considered the next closest \u201csovereign\u201d, such a proposition would have to necessarily satisfy Austin\u2019s two-tiered test: first, that the Parliament does not habitually obey any superior; second, that it is habitually obeyed by the bulk of the people. Strictly speaking, India has no one single person who is always and without constraint above all authority since it is a constitutional democracy.[xxv]<\/a> The Parliament\u2019s authority is subject to oversight by the judiciary and in turn, by the Constitution.[xxvi]<\/a> The final stamp of approval to any act of the Parliament lies with the head of the state i.e., the President.[xxvii]<\/a> Hence, the Parliament is not an authority which can qualify as an unrestricted \u201csovereign\u201d according to Austin\u2019s theory. Moreover, it cannot be said that the Parliament was \u201chabitually obeyed\u201d by the people of J&K. J&K\u2019s obedience to the Parliament extended only to the matters as agreed in the Instrument of Accession;[xxviii]<\/a> their obedience can be called \u2018limited\u2019 at most. Such an entity is a far cry from the Austinian vision of an all-powerful sovereign, casting doubt over the validity of a law issued by such a \u201csovereign\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pure Theory of Law: Kelsen<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Kelsen\u2019s idea of legitimacy is shaped by the normative structure of a grundnorm<\/em>, which is the Constitution in the Indian context.[xxix]<\/a> The Constitution prescribed a procedure for amendment within Article 370 itself, authorising the President to issue an order but only upon the recommendation of J&K\u2019s Constituent Assembly.[xxx]<\/a> Here, there can be two approaches to interpreting the abrogation according to Kelsen\u2019s theory. If this procedure is strictly construed, then the abrogation was in clear violation of the Constitution since there was no recommendation by J&K\u2019s Constituent Assembly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, Kelsen acknowledged that revolutionary changes to the basic norm in moments of constitutional reform are possible provided that a new legal order is efficacious\u2014 it is generally accepted and not effectively resisted.[xxxi]<\/a> If the constitutional order amending the term \u201cConstituent Assembly\u201d to \u201cLegislative Assembly\u201d in Article 370 was efficacious enough to constitute a new constitutional reality, then sovereign authority would be derived from the Constitution as amended. This would consequently endow a legitimate character upon the abrogation, since the recommendation of the authority functioning in place of the Legislative Assembly, namely the Parliament, was secured.[xxxii]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hence, Kelsen does not treat the issue as a straightforward \u2018yes-or-no\u2019 question but instead, allows for difference of opinion.  The question of efficacy is inherently contestable, turning on the degree of acceptance, stability, and continuity of the new legal order. As a result, the validity of the abrogation within Kelsen\u2019s theory depends not merely on formal compliance, but on whether the altered constitutional arrangement has, in fact, been accepted as the operative normative order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Theory of Exceptions: Schmitt<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In 2019, an extraordinary emergency can be deemed to have existed in J&K which required the Union Parliament to step into the shoes of the supreme decision-maker. It triggered a legal \u201cexception\u201d by reinterpreting certain constitutional provisions in light of the prevailing situation and then repealed Article 370. In Schmitt\u2019s terms, the ordinary constitutional order was reconfigured by this sovereign act. Schmittian thought would therefore see this abrogation as valid, since this was the decision of the sovereign in the midst of extraordinary circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, the Constitution itself contains built-in mechanisms for addressing such emergencies in the form of Article 356 to enable sovereign decision-making during crisis.[xxxiii]<\/a>\u00a0 While Schmitt may entirely justify going-around the legislative process of Article 370 by framing the existing situation as an emergency, critics might contend that any such emergency should have been tackled through the established conditional procedure. Yet, from Schmitt\u2019s point of view, the bounds of normality can be transgressed since the sovereign acts do not merely suspend legal order but instead redefine constitutional realityduring crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This raises a further question: whether the Supreme Court\u2019s own reasoning in upholding the abrogation reflects a Schmittian sovereign act. By endorsing the Parliament\u2019s actions and validating the amended constitutional scheme, the Court may be seen as retrospectively affirming the sovereign decision, thereby stabilising what was initially an act of exception into accepted constitutional reality. In doing so, the Court does not merely interpret the Constitution but arguably participates in redefining it\u2014blurring the line between adjudication and sovereign decision-making in moments of constitutional crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conclusion: Lessons from the Abrogation of Article 370<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The abrogation of Article 370 marked a momentous point in Indian constitutional history, an event that brought to the centre stage conflicting views of sovereignty. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the abrogation, with the bench having differing views on who had sovereign power to implement the abrogation.[xxxiv]<\/a> While the CJI vested all sovereignty in the Parliament, noting that the J&K Constitution indicates a \u201cclear absence of\u2026a reference to sovereignty\u201d,[xxxv]<\/a> Justice Kaul and Justice Khanna, held<\/a> that J&K retained limited autonomy.[xxxvi]<\/a> The bench also accorded rather wide discretion to the President in dealing with emergency situations, bringing the abrogation of constitutional provisions such as Article 370 within the ambit of Article 356.[xxxvii]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This reasoning resonates with Schmitt\u2019s theory by permitting procedural relaxation in sovereign actions during a crisis. While there are multiple other nuances of this decision, what is evident is that sovereignty is as much a philosophical  reality as it is a legal one. While to Austin, the abrogation would be no law at all, Schmitt would not hesitate in upholding its validity, with Kelsen adopting a middle ground between the two. Hence, sovereignty, as a concept, will always be on trial, and every time courts are confronted with this dilemma, they must strive to reconcile the supreme assertion of sovereign power with due regard for constitutionalism. This would require courts to permit the exercise of sovereign power only when it is rooted in identifiable statutory provisions, justified by India\u2019s constitutional history, and open to judicial review on grounds of proportionality and democratic balance. In this manner, sovereign power will remain neither unchecked nor unutilised, but aligned with the foundational ideal that sovereignty ultimately rests with, and remains accountable to, the people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[i]<\/a> Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics<\/em> (Eastern Book Company, 1980).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ii]<\/a> K Venkataramanan, \u2018Explained | What Is the Debate Around Article 370?\u2019 The Hindu<\/em> (11 December 2023) <https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/explained-what-is-the-debate-around-article-370\/article67188711.ece> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[iii]<\/a> Supreme Court Observer, \u2018Abrogation of Article 370: Judgement Summary\u2019 <https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/reports\/abrogation-of-article-370-judgement-summary\/> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[iv]<\/a> M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law<\/em> (LexisNexis, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[v]<\/a> John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined<\/em> (Cambridge University Press 1995) ch 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[vi]<\/a> Samuel E Stumpf, \u2018Austin\u2019s Theory of the Separation of Law and Morals\u2019 (1960) 14(1) Vand L Rev 117 <https:\/\/scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu\/vlr\/vol14\/iss1\/6\/> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[vii]<\/a> Hans Kelsen, The General Theory of Law and State<\/em> (Harvard University Press 1945).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[viii]<\/a> Hans Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law<\/em> (Max Knight tr, University of California Press 1967) ch 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ix]<\/a> Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty<\/em> (George Schwab tr, University of Chicago Press 2005) 1\u201315.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[x]<\/a> Schmitt (n 7) chs 1\u20132.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xi]<\/a> \u20181947: Maharaja Hari Singh Signs Instrument of Accession\u2019 Frontline<\/em> <https:\/\/frontline.thehindu.com\/the-nation\/india-at-75-epochal-moments-1947-maharaja-hari-singh-signs-instrument-of-accession-jammu-kashmir\/article65727536.ece> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xii]<\/a> \u2018Today in History \u2014 Maharaja Hari Singh Signed Instrument of Accession Making Kashmir Part of India\u2019 The Times of India<\/em> <https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/today-in-history-maharaja-hari-singh-signed-instrument-of-accession-making-kashmir-part-of-india\/articleshow\/104727961.cms> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xiii]<\/a> Aijaz Ashraf Wani, \u2018Jammu and Kashmir in the Aftermath of August 2019\u2019 Institut Fran\u00e7ais des Relations Internationales<\/em> (25 February 2025) <https:\/\/www.ifri.org\/en\/papers\/jammu-and-kashmir-aftermath-august-2019> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xiv]<\/a> Constitution of India 1950, art 370 (repealed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xv]<\/a> Parul Singh, \u2018Abrogation of Article 370: A Look Back at Its Origin and Aftermath\u2019 (2022) 3 Anvesha \u2013 A Multidisciplinary E\u2011Journal for All Researches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xvi]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xvii]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xviii]<\/a> Sampat Prakash v State of Jammu & Kashmir<\/em> [1969] AIR 1970 SC 1118.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xix]<\/a> Supreme Court Observer, \u2018Abrogation of Article 370: Judgement Summary\u2019 <https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/reports\/abrogation-of-article-370-judgement-summary\/> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xx]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxi]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxii]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxiii]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxiv]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxv]<\/a> V N Shukla, Constitution of India<\/em> (MP Singh ed, 4th edn, Eastern Book Company 2008) 131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxvi]<\/a> Minerva Mills v Union of India<\/em> [1980] 3 SCC 625.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxvii]<\/a> V N Shukla, Constitution of India<\/em> (MP Singh ed, 4th edn, Eastern Book Company 2008) 131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxviii]<\/a> \u2018Today in History \u2014 Maharaja Hari Singh Signed Instrument of Accession Making Kashmir Part of India\u2019 The Times of India<\/em> <https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/today-in-history-maharaja-hari-singh-signed-instrument-of-accession-making-kashmir-part-of-india\/articleshow\/104727961.cms> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxviii] Aijaz Ashraf Wani, \u2018Jammu and Kashmir in the Aftermath of August 2019\u2019 Institut Fran\u00e7ais des Relations Internationales<\/em> (25 February 2025) <https:\/\/www.ifri.org\/en\/papers\/jammu-and-kashmir-aftermath-august-2019> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxix]<\/a> Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation<\/em> (Oxford University Press 1966).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxx]<\/a> The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 370 (repealed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxi]<\/a> Hans Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law<\/em> (Max Knight tr, University of California Press 1967) ch 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxii]<\/a> Parul Singh, \u2018Abrogation of Article 370: A Look Back at Its Origin and Aftermath\u2019 (2022) 3 Anvesha \u2013 A Multidisciplinary E\u2011Journal for All Researches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxiii]<\/a> Constitution of India 1950, art 356.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxiv]<\/a> Anuradha Bhasin v Union Of India<\/em> [2020] 1 SCALE 69.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxv]<\/a> Gauri Kashyap and R Sai Spandana, \u2018Abrogation of Article 370 | Judgement Summary\u2019 Supreme Court Observer<\/em> (11 December 2023) <https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/reports\/abrogation-of-article-370-judgement-summary\/> accessed 3 October 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxvi]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxvii]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[By Harshita Saraf, third year B.A. LL.B. student at WBNUJS, Kolkata] I.      The Prism of Sovereignty: How Jurisprudence Shapes Legal Interpretation Perhaps, there is no single, objective reality to any fact; it is shaped by the narrative through which it is told. Law, too, exists in a similar interpretive space, where every legal event is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[154,132,148,155],"class_list":["post-460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-submissions","tag-baxi","tag-constitution","tag-john-austin","tag-schmitt"],"yoast_head":"\nSovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370 - CJLT- NLIU<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370 - CJLT- NLIU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[By Harshita Saraf, third year B.A. LL.B. student at WBNUJS, Kolkata] I.      The Prism of Sovereignty: How Jurisprudence Shapes Legal Interpretation Perhaps, there is no single, objective reality to any fact; it is shaped by the narrative through which it is told. Law, too, exists in a similar interpretive space, where every legal event is […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"CJLT- NLIU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-04T10:03:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-04T10:04:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"CJLT NLIU\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"CJLT NLIU\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"CJLT NLIU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/person\/eb4f22ec97541cd2591a500187c56ad2\"},\"headline\":\"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-04T10:03:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-04T10:04:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\"},\"wordCount\":2707,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Baxi\",\"Constitution\",\"John Austin\",\"Schmitt\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Submissions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\",\"name\":\"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370 - CJLT- NLIU\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-04T10:03:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-04T10:04:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/\",\"name\":\"CJLT- NLIU\",\"description\":\"CENTRE FOR JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY, NLIU BHOPAL\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CJLT- NLIU\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Untitled_design-removebg-preview.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Untitled_design-removebg-preview.png\",\"width\":592,\"height\":176,\"caption\":\"CJLT- NLIU\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/cjlt\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/person\/eb4f22ec97541cd2591a500187c56ad2\",\"name\":\"CJLT NLIU\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b44391ad9508ea1c0962d41dae66a805288f8c0714fb175d42c0387e74f7a625?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b44391ad9508ea1c0962d41dae66a805288f8c0714fb175d42c0387e74f7a625?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b44391ad9508ea1c0962d41dae66a805288f8c0714fb175d42c0387e74f7a625?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"CJLT NLIU\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?author=3\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370 - CJLT- NLIU","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370 - CJLT- NLIU","og_description":"[By Harshita Saraf, third year B.A. LL.B. student at WBNUJS, Kolkata] I.      The Prism of Sovereignty: How Jurisprudence Shapes Legal Interpretation Perhaps, there is no single, objective reality to any fact; it is shaped by the narrative through which it is told. Law, too, exists in a similar interpretive space, where every legal event is […]","og_url":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460","og_site_name":"CJLT- NLIU","article_published_time":"2026-04-04T10:03:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-04T10:04:26+00:00","author":"CJLT NLIU","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"CJLT NLIU","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460"},"author":{"name":"CJLT NLIU","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/person\/eb4f22ec97541cd2591a500187c56ad2"},"headline":"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370","datePublished":"2026-04-04T10:03:52+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-04T10:04:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460"},"wordCount":2707,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#organization"},"keywords":["Baxi","Constitution","John Austin","Schmitt"],"articleSection":["Submissions"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460","url":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460","name":"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370 - CJLT- NLIU","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-04T10:03:52+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-04T10:04:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?p=460#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sovereignty on Trial: The Aftermath of Article 370"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/","name":"CJLT- NLIU","description":"CENTRE FOR JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY, NLIU BHOPAL","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#organization","name":"CJLT- NLIU","url":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Untitled_design-removebg-preview.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Untitled_design-removebg-preview.png","width":592,"height":176,"caption":"CJLT- NLIU"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/cjlt\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/#\/schema\/person\/eb4f22ec97541cd2591a500187c56ad2","name":"CJLT NLIU","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b44391ad9508ea1c0962d41dae66a805288f8c0714fb175d42c0387e74f7a625?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b44391ad9508ea1c0962d41dae66a805288f8c0714fb175d42c0387e74f7a625?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b44391ad9508ea1c0962d41dae66a805288f8c0714fb175d42c0387e74f7a625?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"CJLT NLIU"},"url":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/?author=3"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=460"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":461,"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460\/revisions\/461"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cjlt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}