The decision to reorganize Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories raises significant questions about Parliament's authority in such matters. This transformation involves converting a state with an elected legislature into Union Territories, one of which lacks a legislature entirely, while the other has limited legislative powers. The implications of this move on democratic participation and governance are profound.
The transformation of J&K into Union Territories introduces notable changes in governance. The centrally appointed administrator, the Lieutenant Governor, assumes substantial decision-making authority. This differs markedly from the role of a State Governor, who typically acts on the advice of the State's Council of Ministers.
In the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, a legislature with specific powers will exist. However, the central government retains direct control over key areas such as public order and police through the Lieutenant Governor. This arrangement limits the decision-making scope of elected representatives.
The reorganization of a full-fledged state into Union Territories is unprecedented in India. A mild comparison can be made with Delhi's historical transformation from a "Part C" State into a Union Territory. However, Delhi was effectively a Union Territory for all practical purposes, and its status as a "Part C" State was nominal.
After India's independence, states were categorized into Part A, Part B, and Part C based on factors like size, population, and administrative considerations. Part A states enjoyed greater autonomy and self-governance, whereas Part B states, which were princely states that had acceded to India, had varying degrees of autonomy. Part C states, like Delhi, were smaller and directly administered by the central government, with limited legislative powers.
Jammu and Kashmir was a full state with constitutional autonomy, while Delhi was essentially a Union Territory. However, Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution empower Parliament to demote a state to the status of a Union Territory.
Under Article 370, J&K enjoyed a higher degree of autonomy, though it did not imply sovereignty. The conversion into a Union Territory significantly curtails democratic rights.
The transformation of Delhi into a Union Territory, and its eventual legislative restoration, was achieved through constitutional amendments. In J&K's case, a different method was adopted due to its unique status.
Special status for states, as outlined in the Indian Constitution, reflects unique contexts. While Article 370 was temporary, Article 371 is not. The reorganization of J&K highlights the complexities of balancing governance changes with democratic representation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the diverse democratic fabric while adapting administrative structures.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
