India's legislative actions in Jammu and Kashmir — legal or illegal?

[cerberus]

Basic requirement to make any changes to J&K status is, "recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State … shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

Yes

Governor is given his consent
Who is under 367 is made as Sadre e riyasat

 

[undercover JIX]

Yes

Governor is given his consent
Who is under 367 is made as Sadre e riyasat

lol appointed under presidential rule...fake Governor not a representative of J&K.

try again.

With the elected government removed, the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir required by Article 370(1)(d) for exceptions or modifications to the Constitution of India in its application to Jammu and Kashmir was obtained by the president of India, presumably, through consultations with himself acting as the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, following the proclamation of of December 18, 2018.

 

[cerberus]

Now when there is no constituent Assembly and J&K is under presidential rule, and India pass any resolution with 1000% votes without any consultation, recommendation and approval from J&K, its unilateral decision breaching the basic requirement of " recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State … shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

Consultation is done with governor
Under 367
And Paliament under article 35 of India Constitution

Basic requirement to make any changes to J&K status is, "recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State … shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

Now when there is no constituent Assembly and J&K is under presidential rule, and India pass any resolution with 1000% votes without any consultation, recommendation and approval from J&K, its unilateral decision breaching the basic requirement of " recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State … shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

Again same question,

New Delhi said all the changes were agreed to by the state government.

How????? which state Govt.?????

Governor under article 367
Which is termed as state or Sadre riyasat

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

I would just say one option for Pakistan. Put personnels back in your embassy. Hire some top Indian lawyers, and yes, you would find many top lawyers who would sell their trade for huge bucks and your best option is to fight in Supreme Court of India as a representative of Azad Kashmir. Simple as that. There is no other option.

As for the so called points.

1. The constitutional experts verified the Instrument of Accession letter signed by Maharaja Hari Singh. Its a perfectly identical document as signed by other 562 princely states. No promise was provided in the Instrument letter. That's a major reason they decided to move against abrogating it. Dont ask me sources. I saw it in a tv debate.

2. Even if such a letter with promises were made and signed, its of no use now, as the Parliament has amended the sub articles under 370 nearly 200 times without the state assembly approval leaving an precedent. So when there is a precedent which wasnt legally challenged before, how it can be challenged now? Stricly speaking article 370 is still there except the first clause. Rest all have been abrogated. So it can stand the court of law.

3. The only thing the court might look into is Article 3 which has the power of centre to form states, but needs the state assembly to have discussion. It doesnt matter if the state assembly wants an division or not, but it should have an discussion. So there is a chance it might be striken down to form new states. Even in this scenario, they just need to hold an election, have an assembly and then proceed forward to divide the state again as Ladakhis desire.

4. Plebiscite can be held only for the full state of J&K and not only parts under Indian control. Pakistan just required to be patient for a little while in 48 as Maharaja had signed an standstill agreement with Pakistan. If anything Kashmir would have been an Pakistani protectorate. Or implemented the UNSC resolution in letter and spirit by 48, where full plebiscite could have taken place. Nehru would have ensured as he promised one. Chances missed. So no chances of UNSC resolutions ever.

5. As for debate and dissent it has been allowed for past 70 years and more for the last 30. The situation will go bad before it turns better.

 

[undercover JIX]

Consultation is done with governor
Under 367
And Paliament under article 35 of India Constitution

Governor under article 367
Which is termed as state or Sadre riyasat

lol appointed under presidential rule...fake Governor not a representative of J&K.

try again.

With the elected government removed, the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir required by Article 370(1)(d) for exceptions or modifications to the Constitution of India in its application to Jammu and Kashmir was obtained by the president of India, presumably, through consultations with himself acting as the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, following the proclamation of of December 18, 2018.

 

[cerberus]

lol appointed under presidential rule...fake Governor not a representative of J&K.

try again.

With the elected government removed, the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir required by Article 370(1)(d) for exceptions or modifications to the Constitution of India in its application to Jammu and Kashmir was obtained by the president of India, presumably, through consultations with himself acting as the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, following the proclamation of of December 18, 2018.

Fake how president rule is part of Indian constitution
Who are to termed him fake ????
Are you nuts

Or what make you think governor bus illegal under which law ???

 

[undercover JIX]

Are you nuts

After talking to you becoming one.

Indian Constitution states:

Article 3 of the Indian constitution permits, through an act of the union parliament, alterations to the area comprised in a state. However, such a bill may be introduced in either house of parliament only on the recommendation of the president. The president may not make such recommendation without first having referred the proposed bill to the legislature of the state whose area is to be altered.

There is no J&K elected representative who
proposed this bill. Governor under presidential rule is an administrator not the representaive and or elected representative.

 

[cerberus]

After talking to you becoming one.

Indian Constitution states:

Article 3 of the Indian constitution permits, through an act of the union parliament, alterations to the area comprised in a state. However, such a bill may be introduced in either house of parliament only on the recommendation of the president. The president may not make such recommendation without first having referred the proposed bill to the legislature of the state whose area is to be altered.

There is no J&K elected representative who
proposed this bill. Governor under presidential rule is an administrator not the representaive and or elected representative.

Read what
By that logic what SC is not elected

There elected MP from J&K in Paliament itself

Nevertheless
Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
(a) Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws
(i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause ( 3 ) of Article 16, clause ( 3 ) of Article 32, Article 33 and Article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament; and
(ii) for prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offences under this Part; and Parliament shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Constitution, make laws for prescribing punishment for the acts referred to in sub clause (ii);

370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution,—

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;
(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to—
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation: For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat(now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.

 

[undercover JIX]

the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat(now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir,

can you read the Red part????

acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.

right???

Sneaky illegal moves.....
now please do not quote any more, as your own quoted text and clause shows and proves my point.

In the absence of Constituent Legislative assembly, all these moves and amendments pertaining to J&K are illegal.

Under presidential rule, there is no Legislative assembly, hence this can not be legal based on Indian constitution.

You yourself quoted, so Thank you.

 

[cerberus]

can you read the Red part????

But you don't have Ability interpret it Assembly already appointed Governor as interim head Wgen they dissolve assembly itself as they don't have majority ???

can you read the Red part????



right???

Sneaky illegal moves.....
now please do not quote any more, as your own quoted text and clause shows and proves my point.

In the absence of Constituent Legislative assembly, all these moves and amendments pertaining to J&K are illegal.

Under presidential rule, there is no Legislative assembly, hence this can not be legal based on Indian constitution.

You yourself quoted, so Thank you.

G

Bullshit legeslative assembly here is Paliament itself
With elected MP

So no illegal move

If it was illegal Supreme court made it concurrent hearing
They rejected petition for any urgent hearing
Itself show it not illegal

 

[undercover JIX]

Parliament


Bullshit legeslative assembly here is Paliament itself
With elected MP

So no illegal move

If it was illegal Supreme court made it concurrent hearing
They rejected petition for any urgent hearing
Itself show it not illegal

Legislative Assembly of the State

read again what you quoted.

 

[cerberus]

Legislative Assembly of the State

read again what you quoted.

don't have Ability interpret it Assembly already appointed Governor as interim head When they dissolve assembly itself as they don't have majority in the house itself ???

Governor itself is head of Legislative assembly

The primary function of the governor is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the law as incorporated in his/her oath of office under Article 159 of the Indian constitution in the administration of the State affairs. All his/her actions, recommendations and supervisory powers (Article 167c, Article 200, Article 213, Article 355, etc.) over the executive and legislative entities of a State shall be used to implement the provisions of the Constitution. In this respect, the governor has many different types of powers:

• Executive powers related to administration, appointments and removals,
• Legislative powers related to lawmaking and the state legislature, that is Vidhan Sabha or Vidhan Parishad,
• Discretionary powers to be carried out according to the discretion of the governor

Article 35 in The Constitution Of India 1949
35. Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
(a) Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws
(i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause ( 3 ) of Article 16, clause ( 3 ) of Article 32, Article 33 and Article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament; and
(ii) for prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offences under this Part; and Parliament shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Constitution, make laws for prescribing punishment for the acts referred to in sub clause (ii);
(b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in the territory of India with respect to any of the matters referred to in sub clause (i) of clause (a) or providing for punishment for any act referred to in sub clause (ii) of that clause shall, subject to the terms there of and to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament Explanation In this article, the expression law in force has the same meaning as in Article 372 PART IV DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

 

[Nityam]

I would just say one option for Pakistan. Put personnels back in your embassy. Hire some top Indian lawyers, and yes, you would find many top lawyers who would sell their trade for huge bucks and your best option is to fight in Supreme Court of India as a representative of Azad Kashmir. Simple as that. There is no other option.

As for the so called points.

1. The constitutional experts verified the Instrument of Accession letter signed by Maharaja Hari Singh. Its a perfectly identical document as signed by other 562 princely states. No promise was provided in the Instrument letter. That's a major reason they decided to move against abrogating it. Dont ask me sources. I saw it in a tv debate.

2. Even if such a letter with promises were made and signed, its of no use now, as the Parliament has amended the sub articles under 370 nearly 200 times without the state assembly approval leaving an precedent. So when there is a precedent which wasnt legally challenged before, how it can be challenged now? Stricly speaking article 370 is still there except the first clause. Rest all have been abrogated. So it can stand the court of law.

3. The only thing the court might look into is Article 3 which has the power of centre to form states, but needs the state assembly to have discussion. It doesnt matter if the state assembly wants an division or not, but it should have an discussion. So there is a chance it might be striken down to form new states. Even in this scenario, they just need to hold an election, have an assembly and then proceed forward to divide the state again as Ladakhis desire.

4. Plebiscite can be held only for the full state of J&K and not only parts under Indian control. Pakistan just required to be patient for a little while in 48 as Maharaja had signed an standstill agreement with Pakistan. If anything Kashmir would have been an Pakistani protectorate. Or implemented the UNSC resolution in letter and spirit by 48, where full plebiscite could have taken place. Nehru would have ensured as he promised one. Chances missed. So no chances of UNSC resolutions ever.

5. As for debate and dissent it has been allowed for past 70 years and more for the last 30. The situation will go bad before it turns better.

Pakistani citizens cannot file a case in the Indian SC seeking to abolish an act passed by the Parliament of India.

Only citizens of India can do that.

 

[undercover JIX]

don't have Ability interpret it Assembly already appointed Governor as interim head When they dissolve assembly itself as they don't have majority in the house itself ???

in the absence of elected constituent assembly no such move can be made legally, current Governor appointed by the president under president rule is an interim and temporary appointment for only administrative purposes, until new state constituent assembly is elected.

 

[cerberus]

in the absence of elected constituent assembly no such move can be made legally, current Governor appointed by the president under president rule is an interim and temporary appointment for only administrative purposes, until new state constituent assembly is elected.

Governor is not temporary governor Is head of Legislative assembly itself Like president its permanent

A bill that the state legislature has passed, can become a law only after the governor gives assent. The governor can return a bill to the state legislature, if it is not a money bill, for reconsideration. However, if the state legislature sends it back to the governor for the second time, the governor must assent to it. The governor has the power to reserve certain bills for the president.

This Problem when you read things from internet You though Governor was Temporary But its Permanent Constitution post

Without Governor there cannot be a Legislative assembly itself