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high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.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high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.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high court ruled that the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is “a permanent provision” and “cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended”.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.
-
Woman calls press ‘vultures’ outside Nancy Guthrie’s home after tense standoff -
Casey Wasserman to remain LA Olympics chair despite Ghislaine Maxwell ties -
Gigi Hadid feels 'humiliated' after Zayn Malik's 'pathetic' comment: Source -
Ontario tuition freeze ends, allowing colleges and universities to raise fees -
James Van Der Beek’s 'heartbroken' ex wife breaks silence of his death -
Kylie Kelce breaks silence on 'beef' with Dwayne Wade -
Suspect kills six across Florida before taking his own life -
Savannah Guthrie shares sweet childhood video with missing mom Nancy: Watch