Fear and apprehensions of the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of special status have escalated due to the recent domicile amendments. These amendments allow Indians from across the country to apply for local government jobs based on said criteria. These new domicile rules opened avenues of employment for non-permanent residents within the union territory. The Centre is currently faced with numerous criticisms as the new domicile rules can reduce the employment opportunities for the local youth.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) had filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The CAA, which was passed by the Indian Parliament in December, aims to hasten citizenship for persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, leaving out the possibility of India giving citizenship to persecuted Muslims from these countries. Fears that this Act, along with plans to create a National Register of Citizens, could strip Indian Muslims of their citizenship have led to protests across the country. In this context, the UNHCHR seeks to intervene as amicus curiae (third party) in the petitions against CAA that is pending before the apex court.
First Published – August 2018
On 5th of August 2019, the President of India promulgated the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019. It revokes the special status given to Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370 and Article 35A.
A separate Bill – the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 – was introduced to bifurcate the State into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir (with legislature), and Ladakh (without legislature).
Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 was also introduced to extend the reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions and government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir.
The National Commission for Scheduled Tribe had written to the Union Home Minister and Union Minister of Tribal Affairs recommending the inclusion of Ladakh under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Union Territory of Ladakh, being predominantly a tribal region, has its own unique culture and heritage which needs to be preserved by the government for the inclusive growth and development of the diverse Indian nation.
First Published – August 2018
Ladakh was once an independent Himalayan kingdom with political history dates back to 930 A.D. Ladakh constitutes about 70% of the total J&K territory with a distinct political and cultural identity of its own. Since 1949, Ladakh people have been demanding Union Territory status for their region and their demand is based on geographical, cultural, linguistic and political lines. Ladakhis do not want to involve with the anti-India movement in the Kashmir valley. Hence, people of Ladakh demand a union territory status with an elected legislature to run their own affairs and safeguard their interests.
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) of Puducherry should not interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government is in place.
The court argued that the continued interference from the L-G would amount to running a “Parallel government”.
This article explains the following in an analytical manner:
- What is the background of the issue?
- What is the High Court verdict?
- What was the Supreme Court’s verdict in this regard?
- Significance of the verdicts.
- [Table] Comparison between L-G of Delhi and L-G of Puducherry.
The Supreme Court recently held that the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) is bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi government.