Before the constitutional changes relating to the former State of Jammu and Kashmir, which one of the following statements about the special provisions of the Constitution of India with regard to that State was not correct?

Introduction / Context:
Historically, the former State of Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a special constitutional position under Article 370 and related provisions. Several parts of the Constitution of India applied to that State with modifications, exceptions or were not applied at all, and the State also had its own separate Constitution. This question refers to the situation before the more recent constitutional changes and asks which statement about those earlier provisions was not correct. Understanding this requires careful attention to which Articles did or did not apply and how they were treated for Jammu and Kashmir.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- The question is about the historical special status of Jammu and Kashmir under the Constitution of India.- It mentions Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 35A, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 368.- We need to identify the statement that was not correct regarding those earlier constitutional arrangements.

Concept / Approach:
Part IV of the Constitution, containing the Directive Principles of State Policy, and Part IVA on Fundamental Duties, did not automatically apply to Jammu and Kashmir. Many provisions of the Constitution applied there only through Presidential Orders issued under Article 370. Article 35A, introduced by a Presidential Order, empowered the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define permanent residents and confer on them special rights in matters like employment and property. Article 19(1)(f), which guaranteed the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, was omitted from the Constitution of India by the Forty Fourth Amendment for most of India, but historically it continued to be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. Article 368, which deals with amendment of the Constitution of India, was not the procedure used to amend the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the incorrect statement is the one that claims that Article 19(1)(f) had been omitted in its application to Jammu and Kashmir.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider option A. Many standard polity references point out that Directive Principles of State Policy did not apply to Jammu and Kashmir in exactly the same way as to other States, because the State had its own constitutional framework. This statement is broadly consistent with the historical position.Step 2: Consider option B. Article 35A did, in fact, grant special rights and privileges to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir in matters of public employment, acquisition of property, settlement and similar issues. This statement is correct.Step 3: Consider option C. Article 19(1)(f) was omitted from the Constitution of India by the Forty Fourth Amendment, but this omission did not operate in the same way in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. In standard exam explanations, it is highlighted that Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 continued to have effect in the context of Jammu and Kashmir for a longer period. Therefore, saying that Article 19(1)(f) had been omitted and was not available in relation to that State is not a correct description.Step 4: Consider option D. Article 368 lays down the procedure for amendment of the Constitution of India, whereas the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir could be amended only under its own provisions. It is therefore accurate to say that Article 368 was not the mechanism to amend the State Constitution.Step 5: The only statement that does not correctly reflect the earlier constitutional position is option C, making it the answer.

Verification / Alternative check:
An alternative way to check is to recall exam explanations that specifically mention that Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties had a different or limited application to Jammu and Kashmir, that Article 35A was a special provision for permanent residents, and that amending the State Constitution did not follow Article 368. These three ideas confirm that options A, B and D reflect the historical position. By contrast, you may recall that Article 19(1)(f) continued to be treated differently for Jammu and Kashmir, so any statement asserting its omission for that State stands out as inaccurate.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is essentially correct in the sense used in standard polity questions, which emphasise that the Directive Principles of State Policy did not apply to Jammu and Kashmir in the same way as to other States.Option B is correct because Article 35A indeed gave the Jammu and Kashmir legislature power to define permanent residents and grant them special rights concerning employment, property and settlement.Option D is correct because the procedure to amend the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was not governed by Article 368; instead, it followed its own constitutional mechanism.

Common Pitfalls:
Questions on Jammu and Kashmir's former special status are tricky because they combine several exceptions and historical nuances. Students often memorise that Article 19(1)(f) has been omitted from the Constitution generally and assume that this statement is harmlessly true in every context. However, examination questions sometimes test the more detailed position for Jammu and Kashmir. Another pitfall is to confuse the amendment procedure for the Constitution of India with that for State Constitutions. Careful reading of each option and recall of the special nature of Article 35A and Article 370 help avoid such errors.

Final Answer:
Correct answer: Article 19(1)(f) had been omitted and was not available in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir