2

Directions : Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.

The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of
August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The
Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order,
the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has
effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and
modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August
5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares
that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of
the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing
Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India,
unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of
the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the
1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian
Order.
 
So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws
to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on
communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019,
which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the
Union Territory of Puducherry.

The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has
ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for
increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or
boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that
State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has
provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.

The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of
Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent
residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose
restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State
government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other
forms of aid from the State government.

With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and
Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in
other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the
closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The
removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order
had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or
imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.

The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article
367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the
General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.
The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to
clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.

Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the
President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such
a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the
State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when
it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of

[DOCUMENT TITLE] ANISHA

2

Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the
Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.

The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by
amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the
name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself.
Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment
procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5
notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not
require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where
several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending
for adjudication.

The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir passes a law against the 100th
Amendment Act of Parliament of India passed in 2015 in its session held on 20-1-20. The
Speaker of the House attends the session and calls it path-breaking in the ethos of federal
democracy where the legislative Assembly can pass a law showing true spirit of dissent
against the Union.
A Democracy in itself entails the true spirit of dissent and thereby the law shall hold.
B The Legislative Assembly could pass a law because the law was passed in 2015 and then the state
was covered under Article 370.
C The Legislative Assembly could not pass the law but a resolution showing its democratic dissent.
D The Legislative Assembly cannot pass the law.

The People of J and K had the right to have say in interference of legislative law making power by
Union of India by virtue of ______________ the Indian Constitution. 
A Article 370 (1) 
B Article 370 (2)
C Article 370 (3)
D Article 370 (4)

Ram Singh is a permanent resident of J and K and is notified under the Scheduled Caste category.
He applies for the job of DSP Police whose recruitment exam was undertaken in February 2019 and
interviews are to be conducted in the month of December 2019. Ram Singh was not selected
eventually as the government did not provide him reservation benefits. Decide.
A Ram Singh is to be selected as the laws of G.O.I will apply in December 2019.
B Ram Singh is not to be selected under the laws of J and K.
C Ram Singh is to be selected because Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution
have been applied on the state.
D Ram Singh will not be selected because the government of J and K does not recognize the concept
of reservations.

[DOCUMENT TITLE] ANISHA

2

The new order promugulated by the President has removed the legislature of J&K. The New UT is
governed on the lines of _______________?  
A Delhi
B Chandigarh
C Puducherry
D Lakshwadeep

The President issued an order well under his powers and under Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution. If instead of the promugulation of the order, the Parliament would have
removed Article 370 from the Indian Constitution, what would have been the
consequence?
A The law would be declared unconstitutional.
B The Law will fail the test in the court of Law.
C The Law will result in independence of J&k.
D The Law will further solidify the Presidential order of 1954.

Directions : Read the following passage and answer the questions.

The idealogues in the Muslim League and in the then minority Hindu Mahasabha saw it as a
necessary move, that Muslims who went from India to Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Hindus coming
from there to India were moving in the natural direction. While forced to accept Partition because
Muslim League under Jinnah made it difficult for any other solution at the time, Congress rejected the
idea of a religion-based state. The non-religious base of the state in India was conclusively
established in the Constitution in Articles 14, 15 and 16.
 
What CAA 2019 does is discriminate on the basis of religion. The Citizenship Act of 1955 did not
provide the rationale that India is the natural homeland of Hindus. The amendment to the Citizenship
Act in 1985 following the Assam Accord provided relief for those found to be illegal immigrants in
Section 6A(4), where  all rights and obligation of a citizen will be recognised for such a person but he
or she will not have the right to vote for 10 years. There was really no need for the latest amendment
because the issue of illegal immigrants was taken care of.
 
The argument of Shah that CAA 2019 does not take away the citizenship rights of Muslims and
therefore it cannot be called anti-Muslim is weak because the CAA remains discriminatory. The courts
will have to decide whether a discriminatory law which does not affect Muslim’s citizenship rights
satisfies Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It cannot be argued that the right to equality is for
those who are citizens, and that it does not apply to the issue of who can be offered a citizenship.
 
The argument that after gaining citizenship the religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and
Pakistan will be on an equal footing with all other Indian citizens, including Muslims, is flawed in
principle as well as in law. The affected religious minorities from the three neighbouring Islamic states
could have been granted citizenship without the proviso of persecuted religious minorities. The
implication of persecuted religious minorities from these three countries is far more complicated than
conceived by the BJP lawmakers.
 
First, it points an accusing finger at the polity of these three countries, and it would be difficult to
maintain cordial relations with them after this. Second, India can stand up for the rights of the religious
minorities in these countries even as it does for the rights of Sri Lankan Tamils or Fiji Indians.

[DOCUMENT TITLE] ANISHA

2

Mr. Singh who arrived from Kabul as illegal migrant 20 years ago and was moved to
refugee camp in New Delhi was recently given citizenship on the pretext of new
amendment in the CAA. Which of the following benefits or privileges he will not enjoy in
India?

A Access to aadhaar card

B Access to Pan card 
C Access to voter id card
D Access to public employment

What is the major flaw in the CAA according to the author?

A The argument that persecuted religious minorities from the countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Afghanistan were given citizenship according to CAA will be  in equal footing with other citizens of
India.
B CAA is discriminatory 
C The implication of the religious minorities from the countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and
Bangladesh is a matter of interpretation and perseverance of BJP lawmakers.
D It cannot be argued that right to equality is for those who are citizens of India.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called the
amendment to CAA as “fundamentally discriminatory”. Which statement among the following
supports the contention? 
A Goal of protecting persecuted groups and communities is achieved in the amendment
B The national asylum system should be non-discriminatory and robust
C India should stand up for rights of Sri lankan tamils, Fiji Indians and other countries as well
D The non-religious base of the state in India was conclusively established in the Constitution in
Articles 14, 15 and 16

The passage of the bill provoked protests and violent demonstration in Assam and other
north-eastern states. What was the contention of protests in the demographic region?
A Granting citizenships to refugees and immigrants will cause a loss of their political rights, culture
and land rights
B Discrimination of muslim refugees in proposed bill
C denial of citizenship to religious minorities from Myanmar.
D The constitution provides right against discrimination under Article 15 of the constitution.

The constitution deals with the citizenship in the Article 5-11 under part ii .It empowers the
Parliament to enact laws pertaining to citizenship and matters dealing with citizenship. Then why
the enactment of Citizenship Act is important?
A It contains neither any permanent nor any elaborate provisions in this regard.
B it only identifies the persons who became citizens of India at its commencement (i.e., on
January 26, 1950).

[DOCUMENT TITLE] ANISHA

2

C It does
not deal with the problem of acquisition or loss of citizenship subsequent to its
commencement.
D All of the above

[DOCUMENT TITLE] ANISHA