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high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.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high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.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high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.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.
More From World News
-
Global cooperation on deathwatch: UN chief warns of ‘powerful forces’ in play
-
Insurrection Act in Minneapolis? Trump says 'not right now'
-
Historic UN biodiversity treaty takes effect today, aiming to protect 30% of high seas by 2030
-
King Salman leaves hospital after 'reassuring' medical tests
-
Snow storm warning in Ontario’s weather forecast through Tuesday
-
Canada and China trade deal: All you need to know about the new agreement
-
South Korea’s ex-president Yoon Suk Yeol, sentenced to 5 years in prison: Key details explained
-
Sarah Hartsfield murder conviction prompts review of past fiancé killing