Article 370 of the Constitution of India: Difference between revisions

 

'''Article 370 of the Indian constitution''' gave special status to [[Jammu and Kashmir (state)|Jammu and Kashmir]], a region located in the northern part of [[Indian subcontinent]] and part of the larger region of [[Kashmir]] which has been the subject of a dispute between [[India]], [[Pakistan]] and [[China]] since 1947.<ref name="britannica-jammu-kashmir">{{citation|last1=Akhtar|first1=Rais|title=Jammu and Kashmir, State, India|url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Jammu-and-Kashmir|publisher=Encyclopaedia Britannica|access-date=7 August 2019|last2=Kirk|first2=William}} (subscription required) Quote: "Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947."</ref><ref name="Jan·Osma鈔czykOsmańczyk2003">{{citation|last1=Osmańczyk|first1=Edmund Jan|title=Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fSIMXHMdfkkC&pg=PA1191|pages=1191–|year=2003|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-93922-5}} Quote: "Jammu and Kashmir: Territory in northwestern India, subject to a dispute between India and Pakistan.  It has borders with Pakistan and China."</ref> Jammu and Kashmir was administered by India as a state from 1954 to 31 October 2019, and Article&nbsp;370 conferred on it the power to have a separate constitution, a state flag, and autonomy of internal administration.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-49231619 Article 370: India strips disputed Kashmir of special status], BBC News, 5 August 2019.</ref><ref>{{citation |author=K. Venkataramanan |title=How the status of Jammu and Kashmir is being changed |newspaper=The Hindu |date=5 August 2019 |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/explained-how-the-status-of-jammu-and-kashmir-is-being-changed/article28822866.ece?homepage=true |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190808005453/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/explained-how-the-status-of-jammu-and-kashmir-is-being-changed/article28822866.ece?homepage=true |archive-date=8 August 2019 |access-date=5 August 2019 |url-status=dead }}</ref>  

A total of 23 petitions were presented to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the central government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which has constituted a five judge bench for the same.<ref>{{Cite web|date=August 28, 2019|title=SC to examine legal challenge to abrogation of Article 370; refers matter to 5-judge Constitution bench |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-to-examine-legal-challenge-to-abrogation-of-article-370-refers-matter-to-5-judge-constitution-bench/articleshow/70870634.cms|access-date=2021-03-19|website=The Times of India|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-03-02|title=Article 370 matter stays with 5-judge bench, SC accepts govt's stand|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-need-for-larger-bench-rules-supreme-court-on-plea-on-scrapping-article-370/story-OgFNM16BpwyvcQh5QswT7I.html|access-date=2021-03-19|website=Hindustan Times|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|author=Scroll Staff|title=Article 370: Supreme Court refuses to refer pleas challenging J&K decision to larger bench|url=https://scroll.in/latest/954875/article-370-supreme-court-refuses-to-refer-pleas-challenging-j-k-decision-to-larger-bench|access-date=2021-03-19|website=Scroll.in|language=en-US}}</ref>

In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the representatives to the Constituent Assembly<ref>{{harvtxt|Noorani, Article 370|2011|loc=Introduction (p.&nbsp;4)}}: The representatives of [[Jammu and Kashmir (state)|Jammu and Kashmir]] were [[Sheikh Abdullah]], [[Mirza Afzal Beg]], Maulana Mohammad Saeed Masoodi and Moti Ram Bagda. They joined the Constituent Assembly on 16 June 1949.</ref> requested that only those provisions of the Indian Constitution that corresponded to the original Instrument of Accession should be applied to the State and that the state's constituent assembly, when formed, would decide on the other matters. Government of India agreed to the demands shortly before the above meeting with the other states.{{refn|group=note|The negotiations were held at the residence of Home minister [[Vallabhbhai Patel]] on 15–16 May 1949, and prime minister Nehru recorded the results in a letter on 18 May. It said in particular, "It will be for the Constituent Assembly of the State when convened, to determine in respect of which other subjects the state may accede".{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011||loc=Introduction (p.&nbsp;4)}}}} Accordingly, the Article 370 was incorporated into the Indian Constitution, which stipulated that the other articles of the Constitution that gave powers to the Central Government would be applied to Jammu and Kashmir only with the concurrence of the State's constituent assembly. This was a "temporary provision" in that its applicability was intended to last till the formulation and adoption of the State's constitution.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|loc=Introduction}} However, the State's constituent assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957 without recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article 370. Thus, the Article was considered to have become a permanent feature of the Indian constitution, as confirmed by various rulings of the [[Supreme Court of India]] and the [[High Court of Jammu and Kashmir]], the latest of which was in April 2018.<ref>[http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/article-370-granting-special-status-to-the-state-is-permanent-jammu-and-kashmir-high-court/articleshow/49310080.cms Article 370, granting special status to the state, is permanent: Jammu and Kashmir High Court], The Economic Times, 11 October 2015.</ref><ref name=importance>[http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-importance-of-article-370/article7762192.ece The importance of Article 370], The Hindu, 15 October 2015.</ref><ref>[[Amitabh Mattoo]], [http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/understanding-article-370/article5426473.ece Understanding Article 370], The Hindu, 29 May 2014.<br />[http://www.deccanherald.com/content/440377/bjp-quiet-explained-article-370.html BJP is quiet since I explained Article 370 to Modi: Jethmalani], Deccan Herald, 8 November 2014.</ref><ref name="TOI 2018">[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/article-370-has-acquired-permanent-status-supreme-court/articleshow/63603527.cms Article 370 has acquired permanent status: Supreme Court], The Times of India, 4 April 2018.</ref>

{{quote|'''370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir'''{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=169-170 Table 5.1 with footnotes}}

:(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;{{refn|group=note|Article 238 was repealed by the [[List of amendments of the Constitution of India|7th Amendment]] in 1956.}}

''Explanation'' [1952 wording]: 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.{{refn|group=note|This was changed via the [[#Presidential order of 1952|1952 Presidential order]].{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|p=225}}}}

The clause 7 of the [[Instrument of Accession]] signed by [[Maharaja Hari Singh]] declared that the State could not be compelled to accept any future Constitution of India. The State was within its rights to draft its own constitution and to decide for itself what additional powers to extend to the Central Government. Article 370 was designed to protect those rights.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=1-2}}

According to the constitutional scholar [[A. G. Noorani]], Article 370 records a 'solemn compact'. Neither India nor the State can unilaterally amend or abrogate the Article except in accordance with the terms of the Article.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|p=1}}

Article 370 embodied six special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir:{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=5-6}}{{sfnp|Tillin, Asymmetric Federalism|2016|p=546}}

Once the State's Constitutional Assembly convened on 31 October 1951, the State Government's power to give `concurrence' lapsed. After the Constituent Assembly dispersed on 17 November 1956, adopting a Constitution for the State, the only authority provided to extend more powers to the Central Government or to accept Central institutions vanished.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=7-8}}{{sfnp|Kumar, The Constitutional and Legal Routes|2005|p=97}}{{sfnp|Tillin, Asymmetric Federalism|2016|p=546}}

Noorani states that this understanding of the constitutionality of the Centre-State relations informed the decisions of India till 1957, but that it was abandoned afterwards. In subsequent years, other provisions continued to be extended to the State with the 'concurrence' of the State Government.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=7-8}}{{sfnp|Kumar, The Constitutional and Legal Routes|2005|p=97}}{{sfnp|Tillin, Asymmetric Federalism|2016|p=546}}

In this first Presidential Order under Article 370 "235 articles of the Indian Constitution were inapplicable to the state of Jammu & Kashmir, 9 were partially applicable, and 29 were applicable in a modified form".{{sfnp|Sharma|1958|pp=284-286}}

The State's prime minister [[Sheikh Abdullah]] was slow to implement the provisions of the Delhi Agreement. However, in August 1952, the State Constituent Assembly adopted a resolution abolishing the monarchy and replacing the position by an elected Head of State (called ''Sadar-i-Riyasat''). Despite reservations on this piecemeal approach to adopting provisions, the Central Government acquiesced, leading to the Presidential Order of 1952. The Legislative Assembly elected [[Karan Singh]], who was already acting as the Prince Regent, as the new ''Sadar-i-Riyasat''.{{sfnp|Das Gupta, Jammu and Kashmir|1968|p=200}}{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=8–9}}

===Presidential order of 1954.===

{{quote|While preserving the internal autonomy of the State, all the obligations which flow from the fact of accession and also its elaboration as contained in the Delhi Agreement should find an appropriate place in the Constitution. The Committee is of the opinion that it is high time that finality in this respect should be reached and the relationship of the State with the Union should be expressed in clear and precise terms.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|p=171}}}}

In addition to these original orders, forty-seven Presidential orders were issued between 11 February 1956 and 19 February 1994, making various other provisions of the Constitution of India applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. All these orders were issued with the 'concurrence of the Government of the State' without any Constituent Assembly.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|loc=Section 11.1}}{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=9-11}}{{refn|group=note|The Constituent Assembly was dissolved by a resolution passed by the representatives of Kashmir in 1956, and it ceased to exist on 26 January 1957.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=9-11}}}} Some of these Presidential orders were issued when the state was under President's rule and had "no Kashmir government at all", states Jill Cottrell.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=173–175}}{{refn|group=note|While the Congress party central government led by Rajiv Gandhi was in power, the President of India made an order under Article 370, on 30 July 1986, extending to Jammu and Kashmir [[s: Constitution of India/Part XI|Article 249]] of the Indian Constitution in order to empower Indian Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List after obtaining a Rajya Sabha resolution. The then Governor Jagmohan gave concurrence on behalf of the state government while the state was under President's rule,{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|p=174}} despite protests from G. A. Lone – the Law secretary of Jammu & Kashmir – and in the absence of a Council of Ministers.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|p=174}}{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|loc=Chapter 11}}}} The concurrence in this instance was given by the Governor of the state, a nominee of the Union government.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=173–175}} Such an interpretation{{which|date=August 2019}} was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in 1972.<ref name="ChoudhryKhosla2016"/>{{refn|group=note|name=mmd|In the 1972 case ''Mohd Maqbool Damnoo vs State of Jammu and Kashmir'' (1 SCC 536), the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of interpreting and replacing the ''Sadar-i-Riyasat'' with the Governor of the state. The Supreme Court of India held that the "Governor is the successor to the ''Sadar-i-Riyasat'' and is able to give the State Government's concurrence to any amendments under Article 370", states Louise Tillin.<ref name="ChoudhryKhosla2016">{{cite book|author=Louise Tillin|editor1=Sujit Choudhry|editor2=Madhav Khosla|editor3=Pratap Bhanu Mehta|title=The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d0knDAAAQBAJ |year=2016|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-870489-8|pages=547–549}}</ref>}}

The effect of the Presidential orders issued since 1954 had been to extend 94 of the 97 subjects in the Union List (the powers of the Central Government) to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and 260 of the 395 Articles of the Constitution of India.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=13-14}} All of these orders had been issued as amendments to the Presidential Order of 1954, rather than as replacements to it, presumably because their constitutionality was in doubt, according to Cottrell.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|p=174}}

This process has been termed the 'erosion' of the Article 370.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|p=174}}{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|loc=Chapter 11}} Home minister [[Gulzarilal Nanda]] (1963–1966) opined that the terms for the "special status" granted to Jammu and Kashmir in this Article included a "very simple" process to amend, by an Executive Order of the President of India, whereas the powers of all other states could only be amended by the "normal process of (constitutional) amendment [...] subject to stringent conditions". According to him, Article 370 was "the only way" of taking the Constitution of India into Jammu and Kashmir, it is a tunnel through which "a good deal of traffic has already passed and more will". The successors of Nanda in the Home Ministry have interpreted the Article in the same manner.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=1–2, Chapter 9 Doc#2}}

Preamble and Article 3 of the erstwhile Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stated that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.<ref name="Official website of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly."/> Article 5 stated that the executive and legislative power of the State extend to all matters except those with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for the State under the provisions of the Constitution of India. The constitution was adopted on 17 November 1956 and came into force on 26 January 1957.{{sfnp|Noorani, Article 370|2011|pp=9-11}}

{{POV section|reason=See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Article_370_of_the_Constitution_of_India&oldid=910641368#Human_rights_section talk page]|date=August 2019}}

{{expand section|date=August 2019}}

Article 370 acknowledges the special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in terms of autonomy and its ability to formulate laws for the state's permanent residents.{{refn|group=note|The legal term "permanent residents" replaced the term "state subjects" in earlier laws.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=194–195}}}} In the 1954 Presidential order, among other things, the Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution were made applicable to Kashmir with exceptions.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=178–179}} Later amendments, states Cottrell, modified the applicability of basic human rights in the Indian Constitution to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.{{Clarify|reason="Amendments" to what? I don't see any mention of "permanent residents" in the source.|date=August 2019}} The state legislature further modified these, as well as added "preventive detention laws" that it exempted from human rights challenges for twenty-five years.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=178–179}} Further, the state gave special privileges to the permanent residents in matters such as residence, property, education and government jobs, which were unavailable to others.{{sfnp|Sharma|1958|p=290}}{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=549-550}} [[Article 35A of the Constitution of India|Article 35A]] of the Indian constitution has been interpreted by some Kashmiri officials to disallow challenging any state law, merely on the ground of infringing upon rights, granted to all citizens of India via the national constitution.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=549-550}}

===Education and employment rights===

The state government officials of Jammu and Kashmir have issued "permanent resident certificates". However, these certificates differ by gender.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=534-536}}{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=194–195 with footnotes}} The certificates issued to females are marked "valid only till marriage", while certificates for males have no such markings. If a woman married to an Indian outside of Kashmir, she was denied a new certificate. These certificates are required by the Jammu and Kashmir state officials from anyone seeking to acquire immovable property, education or employment within the state.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=534-536}} Under the state laws, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed the appointment of Susheela Sawhney in 1979 – a Kashmiri-born woman, as assistant professor in the Government Medical College because she was married to a man outside of Kashmir.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=534-536}} Numerous other women – such as Sunita Sharma, Anjali Khosla, Abha Jain, Kamla Rani, Reeta Gupta, and others – sued the state government on different but related matters, charging discrimination based on their gender.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=534-536 with footnotes}} These cases were reviewed in 2002 by the full bench of the state's High Court, which overturned the past rulings and found that the state has discriminated based on gender.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=534-536 with footnotes}}{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=194–195 with footnotes}} According to Cottrell, the autonomy and special status granted to the state of Jammu and Kashmir makes it possible "for it to have rather lower standards of human rights".{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=186–187, 194–195 with footnotes}}

In 2004, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed the Permanent Residents (Disqualification) Bill – also known as the Daughter's Bill. The new law sought to deprive daughters of the state's permanent residents{{refn|group=note|The legal term "permanent residents" replaced the term "state subjects" in earlier laws.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=194–195}}}} of all their native-born rights and privileges if they marry someone who is not the subject of Jammu and Kashmir. This law applied only to the female descendants of Kashmir subjects, and does not apply to the male descendants.{{sfnp|Kumar|2004|pp=534-536}}{{sfnp|Singh|Vohra|2007|pp=157-158}}

Since its formation in 1990, the Kashmiri Hindu organisation [[Panun Kashmir]] had repeatedly criticised Article 370 and supported its abrogation, along with Article 35A.<ref>https://news.statetimes.in/panun-kashmir-condemns-demand-to-restore-articles-370-35a/</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/modi-abdullah-mufti-bjp-pdp-time-for-article-370-35a-of-constitution-to-go-says-panun-kashmir-president-4822271/|title = Time for Article 370, 35A of Constitution to go, says Panun Kashmir president|date = 31 August 2017}}</ref>

The [[Jammu and Kashmir Workers Party]] and [[IkkJutt Jammu]] also support the removal of Article 370 and 35A and the integration of Jammu and Kashmir.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://kalingatv.com/nation/removal-of-article-370-gave-hope-jk-youth-activists/|title=Removal of Article 370 gave hope: J&K youth activists|date=8 October 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/j-k/leaders-and-thinkers-of-jk-bat-for-interfaith-dialogue-124694|title = Leaders and thinkers of J&K bat for interfaith dialogue}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/politics/bjp-vs-all-more-than-gupkar-alliance-these-jammu-centric-outfits-may-be-threat-to-ruling-party-3125219.html|title='BJP vs All': More Than Gupkar Alliance, These Jammu-Centric Outfits May be Threat to Ruling Party|date=28 November 2020}}</ref><ref>https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/pm-bjp-announcements-vindicate-ikkjutt-jammu-stand-on-articles-35a-370-ankur/</ref>

The Presidential Order 2019 also added clause (4) with four sub-clauses to Article 367 under "interpretations". The phrase "Sadar-i-Riyasat acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers" shall be construed as the "Governor of Jammu and Kashmir". The phrase "State government" shall include the Governor. In proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of the Constitution, the expression "Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)" shall read "Legislative Assembly of the State".<ref name=Venkataramanan/>{{refn|group=note|See [[s:Constitution of India/Part XXI|here]] for the complete Part XXI of the Indian Constitution.}} According to Jill Cottrell, some of the Presidential orders under Article 370 have been issued since 1954 in similar circumstances when the state was under President's rule. The Union governments interpreted the "concurrence of the state government" under these circumstances to mean the Governor.{{sfnp|Cottrell, Kashmir: The vanishing autonomy|2013|pp=173–175}}{{refn|group=note|name=mmd}}

Immediately after placing the Presidential Order 2019 before the Rajya Sabha, Home Minister [[Amit Shah]] moved a resolution recommending that the president issue an order under article 370(3) rendering all clauses of Article 370 inoperative.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kashmir-unrest-amit-shah-parliament-reservation-bill-amendment-artcle-370-1577275-2019-08-05|title=No Article 370 for Jammu & Kashmir, historic move by Modi govt|date=5 August 2019|website=India Today|language=en|access-date=5 August 2019}}</ref><ref name=Venkataramanan/> After the resolution was adopted by both houses of the parliament, the president issued Constitutional Order 273 on 6 August 2019 replacing the extant text of Article 370 with the following text:<ref name=inoperative>[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/president-declares-abrogation-of-provisions-of-article-370/article28842850.ece President declares abrogation of provisions of Article 370], The Hindu, 7 August 2019.</ref><ref name="co273">{{cite web |title=Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 |url=https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210243.pdf |website=The Gazette of India |publisher=Government of India |access-date=6 August 2019 |date=6 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806192403/http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210243.pdf|archive-date=6 August 2019}}</ref>

{{quote|370. All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding anything contrary contained in article 152 or article 308 or any other article of this Constitution or any other provision of the  Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, document, judgement, ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of  law in the territory of India, or any other instrument, treaty or agreement as envisaged under article 363 or otherwise.}}

On 5 August 2019, the Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the [[Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019]] in the [[Rajya Sabha]] to convert Jammu and Kashmir's status of a state to two separate [[Union Territory|union territories]], namely Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh. The union territory of Jammu and Kashmir was proposed to have a legislature under the bill whereas the union territory of Ladakh is proposed to not have one.<ref name=Venkataramanan/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/jammu-and-kashmir-crisis-live-updates-1564981600854.html|title=Jammu and Kashmir Live News: Article 370 to be revoked, J&K to be reorganised|date=5 August 2019}}</ref> By the end of the day, the bill was passed by Rajya Sabha with 125 votes in its favour and 61 against (67%).<ref>[https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bill-to-bifurcate-jammu-and-kashmir-into-2-union-territories-passed-by-rajya-sabha-2080688 Already, Rajya Sabha Clears J&K As Union Territory Instead Of State], NDTV News, 5 August 2019.</ref> The next day, the bill was passed by the [[Lok Sabha]] with 370 votes in its favour and 70 against it (84%).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://zeenews.india.com/india/live-updates/live-updates-jammu-and-kashmir-reorganisation-bill-in-lok-sabha-for-scrapping-article-370-2225088|title=Lok Sabha passes J&K Reorganisation Bill with 370 votes for and 70 against it|date=6 August 2019|website=Zee News}}</ref> The bill became an Act after it was signed by the president.  

{{Reflist|30em|group=note}}

* {{cite web|url=http://jklaw.nic.in/constitution_jk.pdf |title=The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 |publisher=Government of Jammu and Kashmir|access-date=11 May 2017}}