These types of discriminatory clauses are considered God-created rules. How can ordinary people in India be justified by these reasons? This is a disgrace to the violations of the fundamental rights of the Constitution. Denying or withdrawing access to the State is a clear violation of fundamental rights. Of course, emergencies, curfews and important areas would deprive citizens. But in the best interests of the country, these things should be stopped. Kashmir`s racial and religious constitution would be a disgrace to the secular Republic of India. The region was once a princely state called Jammu and Kashmir, but it joined India in 1947, shortly after the subcontinent was divided at the end of British rule. Explained: Here`s what changed in Jammu and Kashmir The process of partitioning British India was governed by the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The princely states were not directly incorporated into one of the two dominions, and section 7(1)(b) of the Act provided that Her Majesty`s “suzerainty” over those states had expired and that their powers had been restored to them. Theoretically, they were given the option of remaining independent or joining one of the two seigneuries. However, as described in a newspaper article: “Without British forces available to defend them, independence was not a real option for the princely states, many of which were quite small.
States were encouraged by the viceroy at the time, Lord Mountbatten, to adhere to one rule or another” and did so on the basis of their geographical position, religious identity or other factors. The ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, hesitated between joining one of the two dominions and deciding to remain independent and neutral at that time, as mentioned in another article: Clause 7 of the instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh stipulated that the state could not be forced to accept a future constitution of India. The state had the right to draft its own constitution and decide for itself what additional powers it wanted to grant to the central government. Article 370 should protect these rights. [28] According to constitutional scholar A. G. Noorani, Article 370 contains a “solemn pact.” Neither India nor the State may unilaterally amend or repeal the article except in accordance with the provisions of the article. [29] The two Union Territories were created on October 31, 2019, which was celebrated as National Unity Day. [97] The President of India appointed a Lieutenant Governor for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and a Lieutenant Governor for the Union Territory of Ladakh. [98] The two lieutenant governors were sworn in on October 31, 2019, by Justice Gita Mittal, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir, first in Leh for Ladakh UT and then in Srinagar for Jammu and Kashmir UT.
[99] The president`s reign under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution ended in the state of Jammu and Kashmir on the night of October 30, 2019. The President`s rule is not applicable to and is not necessary for a territory of the Union, since the territory of the Union is in any event controlled by the central government. The President issued an ordinance stipulating that he would directly govern the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir until the Legislative Assembly was constituted in the Territory of the Union. [100] On the side of the Indian administration – the state of Jammu and Kashmir – violence has prevailed for 30 years due to a separatist uprising against Indian rule. The initial accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, like all other princely states, concerned three issues: defence, foreign affairs and communications. All princely states were invited to send representatives to the Constituent Assembly of India, which formulated a constitution for all of India. They were also encouraged to establish constituent assemblies for their own States. Most States have not been able to establish assemblies in time, but some States have done so, including Saurashtra Union, Travancore-Cochin and Mysore.
Although the State Department drafted a model constitution for the states, it met on September 19. In May 1949, the leaders and prime ministers of all states in the presence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs agreed that separate constitutions were not necessary for states. They accepted the Constitution of India as their own constitution. The States that elected the Constituent Assemblies proposed amendments that were accepted. The position of all states (or associations of states) has thus become equivalent to that of the regular Indian provinces. In particular, this meant that the issues available to central and state governments for legislation were uniform throughout India. [18] Constitutional amendments adopted by a presidential decree could be subject to legal challenges. Last year, India`s Supreme Court ruled that Article 370 could not be repealed because the level of state that would have to approve the amendment no longer existed in 1957. The Center even used Article 370 to amend a number of provisions of J&K`s Constitution, although this power was not delegated to the President under Article 370 […].