ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370: WATERSHED FROM VIVE TO REVIVE
Author: Adishree Singh
Co-Author: Shelal Lodhi Rajput
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
In the wise words of Dr. B.R Ambedkar:
“You wish India should protect your border, she should build roads in your areas, she should supply you food, grains and Kashmir should get equal status as India. To give consent in your proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interest of India and me, as a Law Minister of India, will never do.”
Dr. B. R Ambedkar, who was against the insertion of Article 370, eventually ended up resigning as the Law Minister of India. He framed the constitution and did not support the incorporation Article 370 from the beginning. He saw flaws and cracks in the concept from the point of its very conception. The current government also partly justified the abrogation of Article 370 by stating that B. R. Ambedkar did not support it.
This paper presents a detailed study on the abrogation of Article 370 as how it affects and what is the rationale behind abrogating the Article 370. The two articles paving a way in the brains of many undirected youth to opt a way of rebel in State of Jammu & Kashmir especially. Article 370 and 35A are considered to be responsible for the alienation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of the nation. They gave rise to several loopholes which enabled human rights violations throughout the 70 years of its existence. They have led to backwardness of the state.In all and all paper is a fundamental analysis on the abrogation of aforementioned articles.
On August 5, 2019, in a notable move, the Government of India (GoI) revoked Article 370, finishing the semi-self-governing status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). With that, a choice was additionally taken to bifurcate the state into the two centrally administered association domains (UT) of J&K, and Ladakh. Nearby, the government additionally chose to cancel Article 35A of the Constitution that characterized the changeless inhabitants of the state. It might be reviewed that this arrangement was embedded in the Constitution in 1954 through a Presidential Order. These choices proclaimed another stage in Kashmir’s history, promising the individuals of the express an eventual fate of advancement and harmony.
The eventual fate of advancement and harmony. For many years, the topic of articles 370 and 35A has been a highly debated one. Inserted as what was meant to be a temporary provision by the constituent assembly, article 370 stood its ground for 65 long years. Its recent abrogation by the ruling BJP government in 2019, created a frenzy amongst the citizens of India. The nation seemed almost divided with many in support of the move while many grossly against it.
Article 370 as enshrined under Part XXI of the constitution of India provided temporary, transitional and special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When read with Article 35A, it laid down that the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir would reside under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property and fundamental rights. Article 35A has shown to be a serious obstacle to the socio-economic development of the erstwhile State. It has prevented investments in the State and adversely impacted job creation for the youth which again resulted in a cascading effect on other developmental indicators. It has also led to a discriminatory regime between citizens of the erstwhile state and citizens of the rest of the country. Subsequently, it has impacted a large number of citizens from Jammu and Kashmir who did not fall under the definition of ‘State Subjects as well.
Framing of Article 370
Article 370 of the Constitution of India gives an extraordinary self-sufficient status to the province of Jammu and Kashmir. It came into the beginning on 26 January 1950. Article 370 is ordered in Part XXI, under Impermanent and Transitional Provisions of the Constitution. The old Article 238, identified with Part B states or previous royal states was canceled by the seventh Constitutional Amendment Act in 1956 after the revamping of Indian states. Anyway, Article 370 overruled Article 238 as an extraordinary arrangement for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 has been dubious since its commencement, as it presents uncommon status on the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Dr. BR Ambedkar had would not diagram the article as it made a special case inside the structure of a free India. At long last, the drafting was finished by Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who was a compatriot of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and previous diwan of the Maharaja Hari Singh. The reality, that it was at first proposed to be transitory in nature; consequently, it was remembered for the Transitory and Transitional Provisions in Part XXI.
Was Status of Article 370
Article 370 has been included in the Constitution as a brief arrangement. As per Article 370(3), The President may announce by open warning that Article 370 will stop being usable, or will be usable just with such exemption and alteration and from such date as he may indicate. In any case, before the issuance of notice by the President, the proposal of the Constituent Assembly of the State will be fundamental. As the Constituent Assembly of the State no more exists now, subsequently, Article 370 (3) is no longer employable. As needs are if any change is to be made to Article 370, it should be made under Article 368 in regards to the Amendment of the Constitution. Be that as it may, an inquiry here emerges that whether any change to Article 370 under Article 368, without simultaneousness of, or counsel with, the State Government will be powerful? The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1950, sets down that any correction to the constitution doesn’t matter to the State except if it is stretched out by an Order of the President under Article 370(1) which once more includes “simultaneousness of”, or “conference with”, the State Government. It implies that any change in Article 370 must be made in simultaneousness or with the conference of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is by all accounts non-attainable on the off chance that we investigate the present situation of the State. In an appeal recorded by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha, the Supreme Court on April 4, 2018, pronounced that taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘State Bank of India versus Santosh Gupta’ case the discussion over Article 370 was finally settled by the court administering and the arrangement had procured lasting space in the Constitution and it could never again be annulled by the local government. The Incomparable Court had stated since the Constituent Assembly of the State stopped to exist, the President would not have the option to satisfy the required arrangement of getting its proposal for its repeal. The candidate looked for a statement in her request that Article 370 was a brief arrangement that passed with the disintegration of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly on January 26, 1957, and appropriately Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was void, defective and in the break of the Constitution.16 With this administering of the Supreme Court, obviously however Article 370 was drafted to a limited extent XXI of the Constitution under “Transitory and Transitional Provisions”, yet over time it procured lasting status.
From the Scratch: History
When India and Pakistan came into existence in August 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the Dogra king declined the offer to sign the instrument of accession in favour of India or Pakistan and wished to maintain Kashmir as an independent state.
However, in October 1947, armed tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, plundering and destroying the state, and killing and raping in numerous innocent citizens. Upon realising his inability to defend the state and maintain peace and harmony in is, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession in favour of India hence surrendering the powers of external affairs, communication and defence to the centre.
When the constitution of India was adopted and enacted in November 1949 and put into effect in January 1950, 560 states agreed to fully integrate with India. Jammu and Kashmir however, did not agree to do so as they believed that the conditions in the state were not yet normal. As a result, they decided to form their own constitution. In order to fulfill the obligation on behalf of the center to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Article 370 had to be added to the constitution of India. This provision was meant to be temporary and would help accommodate the special legal status of the state into the Constitution of India.
In 1927, the then Maharaja of Kashmir passed the Hereditary State Subject Order which granted the citizens of Kashmir the right to government officials and the right to possession of the land. These rights were exclusively extended to the state subjects and eliminated any availability of the same to the non-state subjects.
After the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union, in October 1947, even though the Maharaja ceded all control to the Government of India, the exclusivity remained unchanged. In the 1952 Delhi Agreement, the government extended Indian citizenship to all residents of the state. Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution by an order of the then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his cabinet. Article 35A of the Indian Constitution empowers the people holding the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) on Jammu and Kashmir, have an exclusive right to acquire property in the state and enjoy state-sponsored schemes. These rights are not extended to any non-permanent citizen. This was done in order to maintain the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir.
The principle question on which the research paper is based are here listed below:
- Is the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution of India beneficial to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir?
- Were there was any past violation of the fundamental rights of the people or did the people of the state face any restrictions due to the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir?
There are many angles for analyzing the abrogation of Article 370 but the watershed that was scratched ton August 5, but the prime focus of researcher in the presented work is as to how the watertight step taken by the government is really in consonance with the constitutionalism and principle of equity, justice, and liberty. The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the constitution of India is beneficial to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir or not. This paper approaches this problem by studying whether there were any past violations in the human rights of the citizens of Kashmir which arose as a result of allowing a temporary provision to existing over a span of seven decades. We aim to get a better understanding of the justification behind the removal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and why this step had to be taken. The prime purpose is not only analyzing the landmark development but also to address through the spectacles of some basic principles along with the utmost principle of Human rights as it is a world-wide fact that Kashmir is that part of India which is too sacrosanct due to its geographical conditions and all-time dubious stands of both the neighbours of ours.
The research methodology adopted in this paper includes the use of legal as well as non-legal sources of law. The legal sources of law used in this paper comprise primary sources of law such as relevant case laws, official petitions filed and statutes and regulations from the Constitution of India.
Secondary authorities of law such as reports and journals were referred. Empirical research was conducted by interacting with citizens of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir in order to understand the direct consequences of the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A on them and how they were affected before this action was taken. Interactions with people outside the state, from different demographics, were conducted in order to get a more holistic standpoint on this topic.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
On 5th August 2019, the Government of India revoked the special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir after 70 years of its existence by abrogating Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution of India. The citizens of the state and the rest of the country had a divided opinion about this decision, as a result of which it became a controversial topic worldwide. There is a need to look at this issue objectively in order to understand if it is truly for the greater good of Jammu and Kashmir or not.
WATERSHED: ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 & 35A
On the 6th of August 2019, Articles 370 and 35A were abrogated through the Presidential Order of 2019. The constitutionality of the method by which said articles were removed was questioned by many, however, in brief, the method of abrogation was as follows. On the date of passing of The Presidential Order of 2019, the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule in terms of Article 356 of the Constitution. The circumstances leading to the invocation of Article 356, in December 2018, were not under challenge. Furthermore, unlike other States, President’s Rule under Article 356 runs concurrently with Governor’s Rule under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme court in Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu, took the view that during the currency of President’s rule in a state, orders passed by the President of Hindavi, either himself or acting through the governor of the state, are equivalent to orders that may have been passed by an elected government. In such a scenario, the president can exercise all powers of the State Government.
The reasoning for many perceiving that the abrogation of said articles were unconstitutional is due to the fact that the constitutional assembly of Jammu and Kashmir which had the authority to abrogate the said articles were dissolved and therefore rendered inoperative. However, the Judgement in Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, by a constitutional bench of the supreme court affirmed a previous view and expressed that the power under Article 370(1)(d) of the constitution would validly be exercised even after the dissolution of the constituent assembly of the state.
The only way of modifying Article 370 is specified in Article 370(3) itself It is extremely essential to bring to notice that in the case of Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Apex Court held that the amended meaning in Article 367 has to be given effect as the existing explanation has ceased to operate. This rationale has direct application in the instant matter as the Constituent Assembly has dissolved, in other words, ceased to operate. Since the definition contained in the Explanation could not be applied to the words “government of the State” thus there arose a need to amend article 367(4). It was held that by amending Article 367(4), a definition is supplied which the courts would, in any event, have given. Therefore, the amendment of Article 370(1) cannot be said to be done by the back door and the doctrine of colourable legislation cannot be said to be applicable here.
The consequences of this Presidential Order, by virtue of the insertion of Article 367(4)(d) extracted above, would be that the reference to the ‘Constituent Assembly of the State ‘ in the proviso to Article 370(3) would now be construed as a reference to the Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State.
The Resolution for abrogation was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 05.08.2019 and by the Lok Sabha on 06.08.2019. Pursuant to this recommendation of Parliament, the President, in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 370 read with clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution, issued the declaration under Article 370(3) thereby, constitutionally abrogating articles 370 and 35A.
Presumption Always Lies In Favour Of Constitutionality Of The Enactment
The presumption is always preferred in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment since it must be assumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.It has been held that courts are ill-equipped to judge the wisdom behind the law and apply it. It must be presumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the needs of its own people. The courts have been of the view that the state can prefer the initial presumption of the validity of the law. In the instant matter, the questioned provision has been abrogated by the legislature and hence the intention of the legislature in removing the existing legislation to meet the needs of the society must be acknowledged.
Effects of Abrogation on Rights of the Citizens of Jammu and Kashmir
Through this section, it is sought to be proven that provision 35A of the constitution was detrimental to the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. This provision enabled the then State to make laws giving special rights and privileges to ‘Permanent Residents’, while imposing restrictions upon others. The following deprivations of the residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir acted as a deterrent against complete integration of the erstwhile State. Chapter III of the Constitution of India, i.e. the fundamental rights, guaranteed to all citizens of India , were not made ‘ applicable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in entirety.
Permanent Residency and Rights of Women
Under the said provisions, a female descendant of a permanent resident of the State on marriage to a non – permanent resident of the State would lose the status of permanent resident of the State and she would not be a permanent resident of the State as defined under section 6 of the State Constitution. By marrying a non-permanent resident of the State, a Female descendant of a permanent resident of the State will not only lose the property which she may have acquired in the State before marriage as a permanent resident of the State but also she would also lose all special rights and privileges like employment under the State government; right to scholarship or any other such privileges as the government may provide. The status of the wife or the widow depends upon the status of the husband and in case she ceases to reside in the State and takes permanent residence outside the State she would lose the status acquired by marriage with the permanent resident of the state.
On the other hand, if a Male Permanent Resident were to marry a Non-Resident woman, then the rights of inheritance of property and all other rights will also become accessible to the male Resident’s family.
In the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr. Susheela Sawhney the appointment of Dr. Ravinder Maadan was challenged as the assistant professor in a Government Medical College on the grounds that she was married to a non-state subject. Her appointment was quashed.
Similarly, Dr. Abha Jain applied for a post-graduate course and was asked to produce a permanent resident certificate ‘after marriage’ failing which she was not to be considered for admission to the Course. Apprehending that she would not be issued the certificate, she filed a writ petition, seeking a direction for quashing for the communication received ‘after marriage’ on the ground that she is a permanent resident of the State of Iceland even though she may have married a non-state subject.
Anjali Khosla, in a case against the State of Iceland, applied for the same certificate which was issued to her with a condition that the same would remain valid till marriage. Petitioner got married to a non-State Subject. She contended on the ground that the condition imposed was illegal and unwarranted. The said condition was refused to be deleted.
It has also been challenged that such an entry made on a permanent resident certificate is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and discriminatory on the basis of sex. 
The action of the state has also been challenged on the grounds that it deprives a woman of her right to pursue her education in the State only on the ground that she has married a non-permanent resident of the State. 
The plaintiff in the case of Harjeet Singh Vs. Taranjeet Kour, pleaded that for the purpose of succession, she is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and is entitled to equally share the property left behind by her father. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff by pleading that the plaintiff being married to a non-permanent resident of the state is debarred from inheriting the property of her father. The trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the suit property as the heir of her father, Ram Singh.
Also, in the case of women Residents marrying a Non-Resident, her family along with the aforementioned rights is also denied access to the most fundamental right provided by the law i.e. the right to vote. An excellent illustration of the above facts would be the instance of Farooq Abdullah.
In terms of education, the local medical and engineering Colleges were unable to get quality teachers and the full benefits of technological advancements which were unavailable to the people in the region. As a result, over the years, the employment opportunities for the local youth have remained extremely limited thereby aggravating the situation. The serious lack of advanced institutions in the state has led to not only an economic crisis but also an educational one. The problem although at a very aggravated position, is most affecting the population at the grass-root level, because due to lack of proper education facilities, the youth of the State were unable to be educated at the same level as the rest of the nation, which has also led to a detriment in the social position of the State as compared to other states.
Schools that are repeatedly shut down also face declining teacher accountability standards and reduced curriculums. The ongoing conflict has had a significant impact on the mental health of students who are exposed to regular violence and live in an atmosphere of fear. To make matters worse, most schools do not have the resources to provide mental health services.
Girls, in particular, have been disproportionately affected by the general decline in the education system.
Kashmir has one of the lowest literacy rates for women in India, stemming from the cultural tendency to prioritize the education of boys over girls.
India is obligated under international law to respect, protect and fulfill children’s right to education. Therefore, the abrogation will be beneficial in helping develop educational institutions in the state through private investments and increased opportunities for citizens within and outside the state.
In addition to this, as per the Sharia law, a girl child cannot be deprived of her rights over the property she inherits from her parents. But Article 35A made even that conditional. This was against Islam and the Sharia, in addition to being in violation of the right to equality and right to religion guaranteed by the Constitution. 
Fundamental Right To Free Speech
Over the years, it has been witnessed that the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir have faced major curtailment. The right to dissent is an integral part of Article 19 (1) (a) and is an important right in the realm of our flourishing democracy.
The importance of the right to dissent was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that The right to dissent is the hallmark of a democracy. In a real democracy, the dissenter must feel at home and ought not to be nervously looking over his shoulder fearing captivity or bodily harm or economic and social sanctions for his unconventional or critical views. There should be freedom for the thought we hate. Freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no freedom after speech. The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accommodation it extends.
The right to dissent is a part and parcel of the fundamental right to free speech and expression and therefore, cannot be abridged in any circumstances except for mentioned in Article 19 (2).
When freedom of speech endangers state sovereignty, what should be extinguished? If we accept that the guarantee of free speech can only be ensured by a secure state, this means that the security of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh justifies the total blackout of the media.
For many years, stringent restrictions on freedom of expression had become a way of life in this troubled border state. Mobile phone signals were often blocked, and the internet was regularly turned off. This had affected journalists’ ability to cover the region properly and meant that it was hard to get any impartial news out of the area. Journalists say they are quick to be labelled as working against the nation’s interest and harassed if the state perceives there to be even the slightest hint of sympathy in what they write towards those resisting Indian rule. Meanwhile, they run the risk of being labelled as statists by separatists if they hold up the state’s established position on the territorial sovereignty of Kashmir.
In the absence of a private sector in Kashmir, newspaper ads become a tool for those in power to control the narrative. Newspapers are mainly dependent on government advertisements and are incapacitated when the establishment puts a freeze on them. The abrogation of the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution i.e. Article 370 and 35-A, will lead to an increment in the position of the tourism industry in the State of Iceland, therefore, broadening the scope of the private sector therefore indirectly aiding the citizens in removing restrictions on their freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, pronounced on January 10, 2020, declared that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business, or occupation over the medium of Internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) respectively. While such freedom is not absolute, the restrictions imposed on it should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19(2) and Article 19(6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality, the bench ruled.
The Top Court said that achievement of peace and tranquillity within the erstwhile state requires a multi-faceted approach without excessively burdening the freedom of speech. Therefore, it is important that the citizens are granted the freedom of speech they rightfully deserve.
Article 370, An Advantage or a Disadvantage by Aditya Shukla and Sumit Mishra
This article discusses the circumstances that led to the state of Jammu and Kashmir being given special status. It discusses the provisions of article 370 and the loopholes that these provisions provided which were exploited in order for the people of Kashmir to attain certain special rights such as dual citizenship granted to the citizens of the state. As a result of Article 370, the center had to take the state’s approval before passing any act or law in Kashmir. Many important Indian laws such as RTI, CAG, etc. did not apply in Kashmir.
The paper justifies why the abrogation of article 370 is beneficial to the state of Jammu and Kashmir by highlighting that there is a lot of untapped potential in the state with respect to natural resources and tourism and how it can lead to infrastructural and economic growth and development of the state. It can also lead to decreased militancy in the state.
The authors show that they are in support of the abrogation of article 370 by saying, “This article is one of the reasons for the separatism between India and Jammu and Kashmir” and “The day Article 370 is removed, the Kashmir problem would be solved”.
We agree with the authors and believe that this step taken by the government is for the greater good of the people of Kashmir. It would right many wrongs done in the past by giving equal status, rights and treatment and would enable the government to expect the same level of accountability from every citizen in the country and vice versa.
Jammu and Kashmir Politics: Religion, Region and Personality Symbiosis by P. S Verma On why Jammu and Kashmir is a special case
Politics in Jammu and Kashmir has been deeply influenced by historical, political factors and socio-psychological and economic factors. People’s alienation from the national identity has been a constant problem in Kashmir for a very long. They didn’t give far more importance to ethnoreligious and regional identities than to the consideration of a unified state and nation. On account of its strategic importance, sensitive borders, geographical location, cultural heritage, demographical composition, and intraregional diversities, the state has become a special case for the Indian Union.
In conclusion, it is humbly stated that the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A will in fact prove to be extremely beneficial for the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. While the provisions were existent, many rights of the citizens were curtailed as stated and portrayed above and a new window of opportunities will now be open for the citizens of the erstwhile state now Union Territory. While it is too soon to comment on the progress currently as not even a year has elapsed since the abrogation, its effects are bound to show in the near future. Not only in terms of the plethora of rights that will now be granted to the people but also in terms of the overall development of the state which has been severely hindered. Therefore, it may be seen as a welcomed move.
Article 370 of the Constitution of India 1950, as it remained till as of late, limited the Parliament’s administrative controls over the past territory of Jammu and Kashmir (“J&K”). The arrangement, which was as of late repealed was under test even before that. In 2018, a test to its legality was mounted on the ground that it was intended to be a transitory game plan. In this paper, it is contended that the endeavor to repeal the arrangement without the suggestion of a constituent gets together for J&K is naturally suspect. This has both literary and regularizing support. Literarily, the deviated government plan epitomized in Article 370 just as the procedural confinements imply that it isn’t available to the Union to revoke it singularly.
Abrogation of these articles now scratched a new path for the development of Jammu and Kashmir as now every Indian law is also applicable there as in the whole union of India with some added features and bonuses to uplift the people and whole region. Also, the abrogation makes a watershed as now India is a complete union and there will no two flags on the same land as it was earlier in the state due to Article 35A and Article 370. In all and all this step made a watershed in multidimensional ways for the betterment of the whole nation in every aspect.
Anjali Khosla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 171/96…………………………………….. 9
Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 8 SCC 395…………………………………………………….. 6
Dr Abha Jain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 166/85……………………………………… 9
Dr Rubeena Nassarullaha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 152/1985………………. 10
Harjeet Singh v. Taranjeet Kour, AIR 2018 J&K 64……………………………………………………… 10
Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of J&K, (1971) 1 SCC 536…………………………………………. 6
Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of J&K., (1972) 1 SCC 536………………………………………… 7
Puranlal Lakhanpal v. President of India (1962) 1 SCR………………………………………………….. 6
Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1969) 2 SCR………………………………………. 6
State of Jammu & Kashmir, vs. Dr. Susheela Sawhney and State of Jammu & Kashmir (07.10.2002 – JKHC) : MANU/JK/0062/2002………………………………………………………………………………… 9
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Susheela Sawhney, AIR 2003 J&K 83……………………………. 9
Sunita Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 1111/85………………………………… 10
Press Trust of India, Article 35A Contributed To Terrorism In J&K: Centre Tells SupremeCourt,( November 12, 2019 02:41 IST), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/article-35a-contributed-to-terrorism-in-jammu-and-kashmir-centre-tells-supreme-court-2130982
Press Trust of India, Article 35A was against Islam as it stripped women of right over property: Shahnawaz Hussain (September 20, 2019, 2:18 IST) https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/article-35a-was-against-islam-as-it-stripped-women-of-right-over-property-shahnawaz-hussain-1601074-2019-09-20
SCC Online [www.scconline.com]
 Khurshid Ahmad Mir, “Debating Article 370 of Indian Constitution”, International Journal of Research, Vol. 2. Issues 3, 2017, p. 692
 Amitabh Hoskote, Vishakha A Hoskote, “Jammu & Kashmir & The Politics of Article 370:Seeling Legality for the Illegitimate”, PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Science, Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 814. (813-835)
 Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 8 SCC 395
 Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1969) 2 SCR 365
 Puranlal Lakhanpal v. President of India (1962) 1 SCR 688
 Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of J&K, (1971) 1 SCC 536.
 Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of J&K., (1972) 1 SCC 536, Para 28
 Presidential Order of 2019
 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balasara, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 318.
 Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 1993 (3) Kar. L.J. 126.
 Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1533.
 G.K. Krishna v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 583.
 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Susheela Sawhney, AIR 2003 J&K 83
State of Jammu & Kashmir, vs. Dr. Susheela Sawhney and State of Jammu & Kashmir (07.10.2002 – JKHC) : MANU/JK/0062/2002
 Dr Abha Jain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 166/85
Anjali Khosla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 171/96
 Sunita Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 1111/85
 Dr Rubeena Nassarullaha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, OWP No. 152/1985
 Harjeet Singh v. Taranjeet Kour, AIR 2018 J&K 64
 Press Trust of India, Article 35A was against Islam as it stripped women of right over property: Shahnawaz Hussain (September 20, 2019, 2:18 IST) https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/article-35a-was-against-islam-as-it-stripped-women-of-right-over-property-shahnawaz-hussain-1601074-2019-09-20
 Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey (2008) Cri L.J. 4107 (SC)
 Article 19(2) of the Constitution of Indica
 Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, MANU/SC/022/2020