Hailing Home Minister Amit Shah's 'extensive and insightful' speech in the Rajya Sabha, PM Modi in a tweet said that it 'accurately highlighted the monumental injustices of the past'
In a tweet, he said: Home Minister Amit Shah's speech in the Rajya Sabha was extensive and insightful. It accurately highlighted the monumental injustices of the past and coherently presented our vision for the sisters and brothers of J&K. Do hear.
Home Minister @AmitShah Ji’s speech in the Rajya Sabha was extensive and insightful. It accurately highlighted the monumental injustices of the past and coherently presented our vision for the sisters and brothers of J&K. Do hear. https://t.co/ho7PPzyz5w— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) August 5, 2019
Home Minister Amit Shah answered questions posed by members of the Opposition parties regarding the scrapping of Article 370 in the Rajya Sabha in the debate on the relevant bills on Monday, making a key point pertaining to the Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state into the union territories of J&K and Ladakh.
The Bill to abrogate Article 370 saw an easy passage in the Rajya Sabha with 125 members voted in its favour and 61 voted against it.
It exempts Jammu and Kashmir from following the Indian Constitution except for Article 1 and itself. It also restricts Parliament's legislative powers in Jammu and Kashmir. It was passed in the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949, and is the first article of Part XXI of the Indian Constitution. The heading of this part is ‘Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions’. Abrogating Article 370 has the effect of also doing away with Article 35A.
Incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential order, Article 35 A defines the permanent residents of the state of Jammu and Kashmir by giving special rights and privileges to the state subjects. It stems from Article 370 that gives an autonomous right to Jammu and Kashmir. The article is also referred to as Permanent Residents Law and bars woman belonging to the state from any property rights if she marries a person from outside the state. Even the children of such women do not get the right as they do not have any succession rights over the property.