On the third episode of justify – The Troubled Beginnings of Kashmir:
Round up the Supreme Court’s verdict in (i) Shiv Sena’s petition against the formation of a Fadnavis-led government in Maharashtra; (ii) an environment protection matter where an ambiguously framed government order is impugned; and (iii) a major jurisprudential development in the striking down of section 87 of the Arbitration Act. Also catch up with the Delhi High Court’s holding in a case of sexual harassment where a teacher-student relationship is in focus.
Deep dive into the origins of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in law and constitution. What were the historical circumstances that gave birth to the plebiscite issue and the Kashmiri claim for autonomy? How was this claim for autonomy recognised in law? Was this legal recognition made in earnest; or was its form a betrayal of the political promise, almost as soon as it was made?
Listen in to Tete-a-tete, where we legal aspects of Kashmir’s exercise of autonomy. How could the Kashmiri people legally manifest their autonomous decision? What options did they have in law? Can we reconcile the setting up of a Constituent Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir with their simultaneous acceptance of the Indian Constitution? Understand why despite having signed the same Instrument of Accession as all other princely states, Kashmir retained some autonomy by only partially accepting the Constitution of India.
As always, write to us at email@example.com with the answer in our weekly legal quiz CLATTER, and stand a chance to win a thousand rupee Amazon voucher. The winner of last week’s quiz was Mohan Gowda. The correct answer was Robert Bork talking of Edmund Burke on how compromises are an essential part of governance.