Kashmir never merged with India, rules IOK high court
The high court in Indian Occupied Kashmir has ruled that Jammu and Kashmir retained limited sovereignty and did not merge with the Dominion of India after partition in 1947.
In its historic verdict last week, the high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.
Under the
By GEO ENGLISH
October 16, 2015
The high court in Indian Occupied Kashmir has ruled that Jammu and Kashmir retained limited sovereignty and did not merge with the Dominion of India after partition in 1947.
In its historic verdict last week, the high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.
Under the Indian constitution, Article 370 grants special status to the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.
“It (Article 370) is beyond amendment, repeal or abrogation, in as much as Constituent Assembly of the State before its dissolution did not recommend its Amendment or repeal,” bench said in its verdict.
The court added that Article 35A gives “protection” to existing laws in force in the state.
“No other provision of the Constitution as provided under Article 370 (1), would be applicable to the State except, by Presidential order in consultation with the State in case the provision is akin to subjects delineated in Instrument of Accession and with concurrence of the State, in case it does not fall within ambit of Instrument of Accession,” the court said.
In its historic verdict last week, the high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.
Under the Indian constitution, Article 370 grants special status to the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.
“It (Article 370) is beyond amendment, repeal or abrogation, in as much as Constituent Assembly of the State before its dissolution did not recommend its Amendment or repeal,” bench said in its verdict.
The court added that Article 35A gives “protection” to existing laws in force in the state.
“No other provision of the Constitution as provided under Article 370 (1), would be applicable to the State except, by Presidential order in consultation with the State in case the provision is akin to subjects delineated in Instrument of Accession and with concurrence of the State, in case it does not fall within ambit of Instrument of Accession,” the court said.
-
Trump passes verdict on Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show
-
Blac Chyna reveals her new approach to love, healing after recent heartbreak
-
Melissa Jon Hart explains rare reason behind not revisting old roles
-
Japan elects Takaichi as first woman Prime Minister after sweeping vote
-
'We were deceived': Noam Chomsky's wife regrets Epstein association
-
Martha Stewart on surviving rigorous times amid upcoming memoir release
-
18-month old on life-saving medication returned to ICE detention
-
Cardi B says THIS about Bad Bunny's Grammy statement