Trending: Call for Papers Volume 4 | Issue 4: International Journal of Advanced Legal Research [ISSN: 2582-7340]



Vastly growing over the past seventy-six years, India has the largest democracy in the world. It has witnessed various socio-economic, political and legislative changes which have rapidly shaped the development of this country. The core of this living, breathing and expanding giant are the 28 Indian States and the 8 Union Territories which possess and preserve diversity, culture and tradition. However, the light emanates from the core of its existence, which is the Constitution of India.

Broadly infamous in Indian political history, Article 370 continues to remain one of the most deliberated segments of the Indian Constitution. Article 370 came into effect in 1949 after its addition in Part XXI of the Constitution, which was relating to Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions.

Despite being added as a temporary provision in nature, the special status elongated and continued for a period of over 70 years, that is, since Indian Independence.

The power granted by the special status was such that it surpassed all the other central legislations conceded by the Indian Parliament. Article 370 enabled the former state of Jammu & Kashmir to most significantly possess a separate Constitution and a separate flag coupled with an enormous power and autonomy granted to the erstwhile state’s Constituent Assembly whicharbitrarily and conclusively implemented separate set of laws, fundamental rights, fundamental duties, restrictive property rights for regulation in the state.

Lord Acton, a British historian and jurist once quoted that “Power tends to corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This absolute power in the hands of the Constituent Assembly formed a basis for caste and gender discrimination, social unrest and economic stagnation in the former state of Jammu & Kashmir amongst other facets.Meant for safeguarding the volatile state of Jammu and Kashmir at the time of Independence, the introduction of Article 370 instead created a whirlpool of differences between the Centre and the State. Consequently, creating a sense of aloofness that alienated the former state from the remaining Union of India.

Thus, once known as a princely state, the special status granted to the state of Jammu& Kashmir was permanently altered on 5th August 2019 after the Indian Government unanimously abrogated Article 370 in a Parliamentarian session. This decision of the Indian Government was upheld and supported by the Supreme Court of India after a five-judge bench on 11th December 2023 pronounced a verdict upholding the abrogation.

With a Presidential order, along with the recommendation of both houses, dated 6th August 2019, the former state was divided into two parts for ease of governance and to allow these divisions with cultural differences and diversities to independently grow and flourish. The state was divided into the following: –

  • The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
  • The Union Territory of Ladakh

Deccan Herald in an article dated 4th August 2023 stated that “four years after the Centre abrogated special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370, restoration of peace, developmental activities, compared to the past, stands out as its most significant achievements. It is more than three decades time, that public and social life in erstwhile state, in general, and the valley in particular, are back to normal routine without disruption.”


Jammu & Kashmir, India, Abrogation, Article 370, Equality, Ladakh, Indian Constitution, Legislation, Judicial Decision, Supreme Court, Article 35A, Revocation, Affirmative Action, Union Territories, Inclusivity, Integration, Diversity, Status change.


Known as the ‘Crown of India’, the State of Jammu & Kashmir had perpetually been an integral part of the Indian Union. This process of integration took effect after the country’s partition on 15th August,1947 when as many as 562 princely states, including Jammu & Kashmir were combined into one land, leading to the inception of a new, young and promising India.

Kalhana’s Rajataranginiwas the first formal chronicle document of Jammu & Kashmir which mentioned various Hindu, Muslim and Sikh rulers who had ruled the land of Kashmir from time to time before independence. The most widely known and historically supported narrative of Jammu & Kashmir’s integration into the Dominion of India is that of Maharaja Hari Singh, former king of Jammu & Kashmir, who wishedto pursue a long -lasting relation with India subsequently seeking help from the Indian Government, after a group of disguised mercenaries from Pakistan attacked his princely state in an act of deception.

The Instrument of Accession, in simple terms, was a legal document that was used as an agreement between the princely states and the Indian Government at the time of Independence for ensuring smooth consolidation of the country. Under the guidance of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the 562 princely states were given an independent choice of choosing to accede with either India or Pakistan.Therefore, by signing the Instrument of Accession, inclusion into the Dominion of India could be achieved on the condition thatthe same would be mutually accepted by the Indian Government as well.

Despite his initial reluctance and wishes to remain an independent and autonomous state, the Maharaja noted grave danger and hostility to Jammu & Kashmir and thus following an attack on his princely state, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in a decisive act to safeguard the people, culture and tradition of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, acceding with India and making Jammu & Kashmir an integral part of the Indian Union for an eternity to come. It is imperative to acknowledge that the majoritarian population of Jammu & Kashmir, at the time of accession, belonged to the Muslim community, whereas the ruler was a Hindu monarch. This facet consequently affected various decisions related to the accession and integration of Jammu & Kashmir into the Union of India.

Later in the year of 1952, the Delhi Agreement was signed between the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, representative of Jammu & Kashmir to deliberate upon the special provisions which would be extended and applicable to the state under the Indian Constitutional framework. Despite Article 370 being added to the constitution, the Delhi Agreement was brought into light in 1952 to further solidify the demand for independent governance in the state, all under the umbrella of Article 370. All these facets hampered the integration of Jammu & Kashmir into the Indian Union. The main outcomes of The Delhi Agreement 1952, agreed by the Centre was as follows: –

  • Whereas, the power to grant pardons, reprieves and remissions was vested in the President of India and the same shall not be handed over to the state.
  • Whereas, residents having domicile in Jammu & Kashmir would have citizenship status in India.
  • Whereas, the head of the state shall be a person recognised by the President of India, but the same person has to be accepted by the state as well and impositions cannot be done.
  • Whereas, the entire provisions of fundamental rights could not be extended to the state.
  • Whereas, the President with his vested powers under Article 352 shall be empowered with proclamation of emergency in the state.

Presently, the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are divided into three major cultural groups which are as follows: –

  • Kashmir valley which is predominantly Muslim.
  • Jammu which is predominantly Hindu.
  • Ladakh which is predominantly Buddhist.


Originally, Article 370 was excluded from the draft of the Indian Constitution. It was introduced later in the Constituent Assembly and taken up for discussion on 17th October, 1949. The reason for this exclusion was the opposition of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, father of the Indian Constitution and Chairman of the Drafting Committee, who refused to draft and include Article 370 in the Constitution of India on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, discriminative and unjust in nature. After deliberations upon the same, N. Gopalaswamy, one of the Cabinet Ministers of the newly independent India, drafted the same.

The draft for the article stated that the provisions of the Indian Constitution shall be applicable in the state of Jammu & Kashmir proviso to the terms of the Instrument of Accession (IOA), signed between the Indian government and the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir which had to be followed in accordance. The state of Jammu & Kashmir demanded and was granted a higher level of autonomy to manage its own affairs as compared to the other princely states which acceded with the Dominion of India. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State policies and many more such provisions were inapplicable in the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

The draft further demanded the establishment of a Constituent Assembly which would overlook and take responsibility for drafting a constitution unique and specific to the state of Jammu & Kashmir within two years, post which the constituent assembly would cease to exist. This Constituent Assembly additionally had the power to enact and deliberate upon which articles of the Constitution of India shall be applicable to the state with complete authority. Article 370 also stated that the Parliament of India did not have authority to increase or decrease the borders of the state and non-residents would not have the permission to own land or property in the state. This was an intentional act undertaken by Maharaja Hari Singh to limit the inflow of refugees and migrants from Pakistan and from different states of India to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Union of India was denied authority to overlook or interfere in the provisions of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.

One of the loopholes in the drafting of Article 370 existed wherein despite being a temporary and transitional provision in nature, no time period was mentioned for Article 370 to come to an end, leaving it open to interpretations and debates.

It was argued by some that such an article was discriminatory in nature, however, other few members of the Drafting committee stated that the unique political circumstances, ongoing instability, involvement of the United Nations, and a tumultuous integration required for the state to be protected and bestowed with such special provisions. The United Nations main policy and effort was to divert the conflict in the region of Jammu & Kashmir and to ensure a permanent ceasefire to peacekeeping, however matters of internal struggle within the country were decided to be dealt with independently without third-party interference.

Therefore, after multiple deliberations, the decision to grant special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir was granted approval. The application of Article 370 restricted the development of Jammu & Kashmir since all decisions related to growth and progress lied in the hands of the Constituent Assembly. This severely affected growth in regions such as healthcare, education, infrastructural development including industries and employment opportunities.


Article 35A of the constitution was introduced as a byproduct of Article 370 and the Delhi Agreement, 1952 which was entered into by Jammu & Kashmir with India. In the constitution of India, one does not find the reference of Article 35A. It was subtly added in the Appendix of the Constitution. Along with Article 370, Article 35A was introduced for an exclusive benefit of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir. However, no special status or privileges were provided to other princely states. The article came into force in 1954 without being mentioned in the constitution and therefore being unknown to public knowledge and also raising debates over its validity over the years.

Article 35A was an extension to Article 370 and it aimed to create a provision which granted the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir the power to classify “permanent residents” of the state. One of the reasons for its implementation was to regulate the flow of migrants into the state. After Jammu & Kashmir’s constitution was framed in 1956, the definition of permanent residents was brought to light which was as follows

All persons, born or settled within the State before 1911 or after having lawfully acquired immovable property and resident in the state for not less than ten years prior to that date. All emigrants from Jammu & Kashmir, including those who migrated to Pakistan, are considered state subjects. The descendants of emigrants are considered state subjects for two generations.”

Effects of Article 35A

Being classified as a permanent resident of Jammu & Kashmir under Article 35A can be seen on two-fold levels: –

  • The benefits, amenities and opportunities provided to the “permanent residents” of the state.
  • The social discrimination, poverty and inequality experienced by other “non-permanent residents” of the state.

The criteria for being classified as a “permanent resident” was determined by the Constituent Assembly of the state.

Such classification allowed only the “permanent residents” of the state to possess property rights. This classification benefitted a small group of individuals and families who were qualified as permanent residents thereby gaining property rights where they were allowed to maintain and own property, land and houses in the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir. Scope for employment in the state was severely limited for non-permanent residents. Since the Constituent Assembly decided the criteria for permanent residents, the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, Valmiki community and other backward castes in the state were denied the same. This majorly affected their opportunities for securing a government job. The criteria for being provided an opportunity was shifted from an individual’s education and credibility to their status as a permanent resident.

The legislations passed by the Constituent Assembly of the state were inconsistent with the fundamental rights which were conferred upon citizens of the country by the Constitution of India, including Articles 15, 16, 19 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud on 28th August 2023 stated that Article 35A which provided the status of “permanent residents” of Jammu & Kashmir to a few was discriminatory in nature and violated and denied fundamental rights to other residents and citizens of India.

On 5th August 2019, Article 35A was abolished along with abrogation of Article 370. With imposition of Presidents rule and abolishment of the article, the entire constitution of India was made applicable in the current union territory of Jammu & Kashmir without any exceptions. Domicile benefits were revoked and all persons who had lived in the territory of Jammu & Kashmir for a period of 10 years or more or had appeared for 10th/12th examinations in the state were given domicile benefits along with other benefits enshrined in the constitution.


Since the abrogation of Article 370, various measures have been taken for the growth, development and progress of the region under different sectors. The aloofness experienced by the region over a period of 70 years has now come to an end with new opportunities being made available to the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Some of the measures undertaken for the rapid growth of the region are as follows: –


With Article 370 abrogated, the restrictions over outside investments have been lifted in the region. Investments in areas such as land, property, education, healthcare and building infrastructure for the state was ignored by the state government for decades. The restrictive laws curbed the growth of the society overall.

Post abrogation of Article 370, new laws have been declared with respect to land regulations in the region. After the status of “permanent resident” has been removed from the state, transfer and purchase of land can take place smoothly. However, transfer of agricultural land for commercial purposes is prohibited under the same. Industrial growth such as increase in trade, commerce and educational opportunities can already be seen in the region. Women are now free to run their businesses which was restricted during the persistence of Article 370. Promotion of recreational activities, art and cinema have also started with full swing in the valley, especially with the inauguration of multiplex cinemas in Kashmir.


Jammu and Kashmir has been considered as the ‘Crown’ of India since olden times. Various stories, lores and poetry have been written over its scenic beauty and serenity. However, the state continued to be under volatile conditions during the continuance of Article 370, therefore, restricting tourist movement in the region due to instability and unsafe conditions. A promising future looks ahead for the union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh for tourism prospects.

An increase in tourism will not only boost the economy of the state but also provide employment opportunity to local artisans and promote the culture and tradition of the region across the globe. After abrogation of Article 370 and changes in the law, the region has experienced a heavy inflow of tourists from across the country, wanting to experience the beauty of the region.

In a recent turn of events, Dal Lake in Kashmir hosted and experienced its first even motor sports event. The inauguration of Formula 4 car racing was hosted by Srinagar and was conducted across the picturesque valley of Kashmir.

It aimed not only to promote tourism in the region, but also to inspire local youth to explore motorsports as a viable career option. Prime Minister Modi also expressed his pleasure stating that such events have the potential to showcase the beauty of Jammu and Kashmir while fostering the growth of motorsports in India. India offers great opportunities for motorsports to thrive, and Srinagar is among the top places where it can happen.”


Since abrogation of Article 370, the overall local security in the region has improved and elements of social unrest have diminished in the region. Increase in activities such as tourism is an evident sign of improved safety that now persists in the region.

Due to unrestrained and unchecked power possessed by the beneficiaries of Article 370, corruption in the state was at an all time high. With the implementation of various Indian legislations and authorities such as CBI and ED, who function to prevent the same, there is a possibility for such corruption to decline.

It is widely known that Kashmir experienced the issue of stone pelting on a massive scale, affecting the lives of children, youth and elderly alike. To curb this issue, an initiative has been taken by the CID wing of Jammu & Kashmir wherein all stone pelters will be denied passports services and participation from other government schemes to maintain law and order in the region. This strict initiative will lead by example and will aim to promote peace in the region by undermining stone pelting activities. However, many groups, parties and communities have been discontented with the revocation of Article 370, thereby also creating a simultaneous threat in the region, having an aim to restore the unique status of the state.


As discussed previously in the paper, Article 35A accompanied with Article 370 created discriminative and biased property rights for non-permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir. What previously allowed only permanent residents of the state to own property or land has now become open for all. Non-residents of the state can also claim for any property in the valley. Landowners are now free to buy or sell their land are also free to pursue the same.

Women who marry non-residents of the state will continue to preserve their rights with dignity. In addition to this, husbands of these women have also been granted domicile status, therefore, making them free to purchase land or property in the state as well as apply for employment opportunities.


Prior to the abrogation of Article 370, many Indian legislations such as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 were not applicable in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Elementary constitutional provisions enshrined in the constitution such as the Fundamental Rights and DPSP’s were also not extended for application within the state.

In this new era, all legislations, bills, acts and amendments shall be applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The benefits of extension of these legislations will be seen in the state when all people are freely able to exercise their rights equally. Following a common procedural law and uniform legislations will not only bring consistency in the country but also be beneficial for the growth and development of the society in totality. Application of such laws will not only ensure the freedom to profess any occupation but also provide opportunities for education without discrimination and openness for industrialisation in the region.


According to the Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganisation Act,2019, a special development package has been announced by the government of India for Ladakh wherein focus will be provided on development of infrastructure such as improved healthcare facilities, better connectivity of the region in terms of roads and tunnels, growth in economic activities, institutions for higher education. The main aim of this scheme is to provide a boost to the new union territory. In future, there is hope that many more of such schemes shall be focused upon the growth and development of these regions.


The following landmark case laws have contributed towards the interpretation of Article 370 and its associated Article 35A in a pre-abrogation era, also showing the issues that arose with each of these cases with respect to these articles. Some of these case laws are as follows: –


In the present case, a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act which was enacted by Yuvraj Karan Singh on 17th October, 1950. The main objective of this act was to help in the overall improvement of agricultural production by transferring of big land estates to the tillers of the soil. An appeal was filed by the appellant in the present case claiming that the act was void and ultra vires and therefore, should be inoperative. The appellant wanted to remain entitled to his big estate land without transferring it to any soil tiller.

It was challenged before the court that Yuvraj Karan Singh had no legislative authority or power to promulgate such an act since he was only the constitutional head of the state, having limited powers. There was also a question of repugnancy of law under Article 254 of the Constitution. The court, in its view, stated that the ingredients required for the invocation of Article 254 were missing in the present case and thus the same deliberation was rejected.

The Supreme Court was of the view that since the Appellant had failed to show any valid reasoning in both Trial court and High court and thereby failed in proving that the act was ultra vires in nature, the said appeal was dismissed with costs. On the question of competency of Yuvraj Karan Singh had the authority for enacting the Act in 1950, the court observed that he possessed legislative competency and hence the validity cannot be challenged.

  • SAMPATH PRAKASH VS STATE OF J&K – 1970 AIR 1118, 1970 SCR (2) 365

In the present case, the petitioner was the General Secretary of the All Jammu & Kashmir Low-Paid Government Servants Federation. The federations demand for receiving rightful allowances at central rates was denied and rejected by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. In a show of protest, the employees demonstrated various remonstrations in anger and for denial of their demands.

Resultant to the situation, the District Magistrate of Jammu ordered for the arrest and detention of the petitioner under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act of 1964. This decision was also supported by the State Government. The detention of the petitioner continued for a long period of time without making any reference to the Advisory Board and therefore, a writ of Habeus Corpus was filed and initiated by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

The main issue raised in this case was whether Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was operative or had ceased to exist on grounds that the modifications done in 1959 and 1964 were ultra vires power of the President under Article 370(1), and whether the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 could be challenged on the grounds that it was inconsistent with Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court held that the validity of the Act cannot be challenged on grounds that it was inconsistent with Article 22 of the Constitution, and Article 370 was in force and effective and never ceased to operate.


This case was related to permanent residency rights of women in the state of Jammu and Kashmir prior to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner in this case filed the petition to challenge the biased selection of candidates in the Govt. Medical College, Jammu. It was alleged by Susheela Sawhney that the sole ground for her non-selection for the post of assistant professor was that she was married to a non-state subject, while her contemporary was easily selected for the post. The single judge bench of the state High Court ordered in favour of Sawhney, simultaneously quashing the appointment of her contemporary for the employment position in question.

This case opened a gateway to the multiple other petitions filed by women who had experienced and suffered because of similar problematic situations.

In the case of Shabnam Taj vs State of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner applied for the post of a surgeon post her marriage. Her application was rejected on the ground that her permanent residency certificate was absent from the list of submitted documents. The certificate of permanent residency issued to her prior to her marriage, conditionally made her a permanent resident of Jammu & Kashmir only until her marriage and the same was not renewed for her.

In majority of these cases, the merits, talents, capabilities and competence of an individual were set aside from their permanent residency status, which was given utmost priority above all.

The Supreme Court, in the present case, was of the view that daughters of permanent residents marrying any individual having non-permanent status shall not lose her own permanent resident status along with the rights and benefits that could be availed with it. This case was considered to be an important landmark judgement in the sphere of trying to put women and their rights at the forefront of gender equality in the region and to reduce discrimination.


In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the petitioner’s detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964. On the orders of the District Magistrate, the petitioner was detained in Central jail, Srinagar. The grounds for such detention were not revealed to the petitioner on reasonings that it would be against public interest, thereby also violating his basic human right by denying him the knowledge to reasons upon which his detention was based.

The main issues raised in this case were whether Article 370 of the Indian Constitution placed any limitations on the amendments made in the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and whether such detention was executed in accordance with the laws and was lawful in nature.

The Supreme Court in its decision held that Article 370 placed no limitations to amendments made in the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. The court also concluded that the detaining authority had maintained lawfulness and therefore, dismissed the petition stating that the detention took place in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir preventive detention laws.


In the present case, an appeal was filed against the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. The High Court decision held that provisions of the SARFESI act are not applicable in the state of Jammu & Kashmir and the same was challenged for contention before the Supreme Court of India, thus forming the main issue of this case.

The main argument of the petitioner was that the Constitution of India clearly makes India a Union of states, wherein Jammu & Kashmir forms an integral part of it. Thus, provisions of the SARFESI act must be applicable on Jammu & Kashmir. However, the respondents argued that Article 370 was a provision which was meant to be overriding in nature and stated that even though Article 370 is temporary in nature, its effect must be maintained. The respondents also claimed that the constitution of India and constitution of Jammu & Kashmir have equal status and one should not be preferred over the other.

The Supreme Court in its decision held that even though the state of Jammu & Kashmir enjoys special provisions as compared to the other states in the Union of India, the provisions of the SARFESI Act would be applicable in the state of J&K but the same must be read with the provisions of the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and applied in accordance with it. The court concluded its observations by stating that the Constitution of India is superior to the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.


Just like a human body optimizes to its maximum potential when all its organs and limbs are healthy and functional, a country as a representation of a human body will optimize its full potential once all its states are unified and fully functional on the path of development.

With the abrogation of Article 370 in a swift and sudden manner, not much time was awarded to the people to familiarise themselves with the changes that would be brought post abrogation, however, the same constituted a necessary and decisive act which had to be achieved for the smooth functioning and consolidation of the country, once and for all. In the present era, the discrimination, stagnation, economical backwardness and inequality brought by Article 370 had to be curbed, since with changing times there is a need for change in laws.

The temporary and transitional provision of Article 370 finally ended on 5th August, 2019 after almost 70 years of existence. Four and a half years since the abrogation was achieved, many positive outcomes have been observed as a result of the same. The new union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh should be allowed to prosper without manifestation of any personal agendas where only a few benefit from the outcomes.

In theory, the decision of abrogation opens up new horizons for the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on various fronts, however, it must be ensured by the government that the same is practically applied to these regions as well. Though the issue of a psychological barrier and isolation experienced by the region is one of the tougher issues to resolve, it can be considered as the first step in a positive direction for inclusion of these regions. Though for many, the abrogation of Article 370 was a much-needed modification for restoration of their equal rights and dignity, there do exist dissenting views, which oppose the same and wish to reinstate Article 370 to its originality.

However, with shared love for our country, India and a mutual respect for our historic struggle for independence, the hearts of people will only move closer towards integration and unitedness.


  1. Commentary on the Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, Vol.-3 (2008)
  2. The Constitution of India
  3. Under Article 370, Kashmir was permitted to have its own flag… The flag was removed from the Civil Secretariat three weeks after the Centre revoked Article 370.” Press Trust of India, ‘Jammu and Kashmir state flag removed from Civil Secretariat’ (Economic Times, 25 August 2019
  4. IN RE: ARTICLE 370 of the CONSTITUTION- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1647
  5. Jammu and Kashmir State Reorganisation Act, 2019
  6. Deccan Herald, 4th August 2023, https://www.deccanherald.com/india/what-changed-in-kashmir-in-four-years-after-abrogation-of-article-370-1243830.html
  7. Kalhana’s Rajtarangini, A chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, 12th century CE
  8. Instrument of Accession, 1947 copy https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/instrument_of_accession_of_jammu_and_kashmir_state.pdf
  9. The Delhi Agreement, 1952
  10. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954.
  11. State Subject Definition Notifications dated the 20th April, 1927 and the 27th June 1932.
  12. Plea against Article 35A cites gender bias, sent to larger SC Bench, Indian Express dated 15-08-2017. 8. A layman’s guide to Article 35A, The Asian Age dated 18-08-2017.
  13. Article 35A and its significance, The Times of India dated 08-08-2017.
  14. Article 35A took away fundamental rights while giving special rights to permanent residents of J&K, says CJI” August 29, 2023, https://www.thehindu.com/news/nationl/article-35a-took-away-fundamental-rights-while-giving-special-rights-to-permanent-residents-of-jk-says-cji/article67244792.ece
  15. Times of India, 20th September, 2022 https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cinemas-back-in-kashmir-after-3-decades-srinagar-gets-first-multiplex-101663683334362.html
  16. Times of India, 18th March, 2024 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/travel-news/in-a-first-srinagar-hosts-formula-4-race-show-along-the-scenic-dal-lake/articleshow/108588520.cms
  17. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-370-temporary-provisions-with-respect-to-the-state-of-jammu-and-kashmir/