Current:Home > MyIndia’s Supreme Court upholds government’s decision to remove disputed Kashmir’s special status -InvestSmart Insights
India’s Supreme Court upholds government’s decision to remove disputed Kashmir’s special status
View
Date:2025-04-18 00:50:26
SRINAGAR, India (AP) — India’s top court on Monday upheld a 2019 decision by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to strip disputed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status as a semi-autonomous region with a separate constitution and inherited protections on land and jobs.
The five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the region’s special status had been a “temporary provision” and that removing it in 2019 was constitutionally valid.
The unprecedented move also divided the region into two federal territories, Ladakh and Jammu-Kashmir, both ruled directly by the central government without a legislature of their own. As a result, the Muslim-majority region is now run by unelected government officials and has lost its flag, criminal code and constitution.
But Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud said the government has promised to restore Jammu-Kashmir’s statehood and should do so as soon as possible. Ladakh, however, will remain a federal territory.
He also ordered the country’s election commission to hold local legislative polls in the region by next Sept. 30.
The ruling is expected to boost the electoral prospects of Modi’s governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party in national polls next year. The 2019 move resonated in much of India, where the Modi government was cheered by supporters for fulfilling a long-held Hindu nationalist pledge to scrap the Muslim-majority region’s special status.
But the judgment will disappoint many in Kashmir, including the region’s main pro-India Kashmiri politicians who had petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the deeply unpopular decision, which was imposed under an unprecedented security and communication clampdown that lasted many months.
The court’s hearings began in August and included extensive arguments and discussions on the move’s constitutional validity.
veryGood! (49511)
Related
- In ‘Nickel Boys,’ striving for a new way to see
- Arkansas Gov. Sanders signs a law that makes it easier to employ children
- Jon Hamm Marries Mad Men Costar Anna Osceola in California Wedding
- Silicon Valley Bank's fall shows how tech can push a financial panic into hyperdrive
- Whoopi Goldberg is delightfully vile as Miss Hannigan in ‘Annie’ stage return
- Why does the Powerball jackpot increase over time—and what was the largest payout in history?
- California court says Uber, Lyft can treat state drivers as independent contractors
- For 40 years, Silicon Valley Bank was a tech industry icon. It collapsed in just days
- The Grammy nominee you need to hear: Esperanza Spalding
- Judge rejects Trump effort to move New York criminal case to federal court
Ranking
- Trump's 'stop
- The Best Waterproof Foundation to Combat Sweat and Humidity This Summer
- We Bet You Didn't Know These Stars Were Related
- Locals look for silver linings as Amazon hits pause on its new HQ
- Trump wants to turn the clock on daylight saving time
- The White House is avoiding one word when it comes to Silicon Valley Bank: bailout
- These Top-Rated $25 Leggings Survived Workouts, the Washing Machine, and My Weight Fluctuations
- Jon Hamm Marries Mad Men Costar Anna Osceola in California Wedding
Recommendation
Juan Soto to be introduced by Mets at Citi Field after striking record $765 million, 15
Silicon Valley Bank's three fatal flaws
Former Wisconsin prosecutor sentenced for secretly recording sexual encounters
Inside Clean Energy: 10 Years After Fukushima, Safety Is Not the Biggest Problem for the US Nuclear Industry
A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean?
Here's how much money a grocery rewards credit card can save you
Apple iPad Flash Deal: Save 30% on a Product Bundle With Accessories
How Nick Cannon Honored Late Son Zen on What Would've Been His 2nd Birthday