Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Interim Constitution of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Act VIII of 1974) provides for an apparently transitory autonomous parliamentary framework of self-governance and power sharing for the region of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, defined by the act as the "territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which have been liberated by the people of that State and for the time being under the administration ...
The amendment represented the abolition of the monarchy of Jammu and Kashmir. [42] [43] Background: The Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was elected in 1951 and convened on 31 October 1951. The Basic Principles committee of the Constituent Assembly recommended the abolition of the monarchy, which was unanimously approved by the ...
Whereas the other states later signed merger agreements, the relationship of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India was governed by special circumstances. In view of them, the Article 370 was incorporated in the Constitution. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja (later Sadr-e-Riyasat) Dr. Karan Singh had signed into law in 1957. [4 ...
Appendix I – The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954; Appendix II – Re-statement, referring to the constitution's present text, of exceptions and modifications applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir; Appendix III – Extracts from the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, also known as the Jammu and Kashmir Vidhan Sabha, is the legislature of Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.. Prior to 2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir had a bicameral legislature with a legislative assembly (lower house) and a legislative council (upper house).
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Following the dismissal of his criminal charges, Thompson filed suit against the officers responsible for arresting him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging, among other things, that he had been maliciously prosecuted in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, which provided the right against unlawful seizures.