Article 370

Article 370 acknowledges the special status of the state of Jam mu and Kashmir in terms of autonomy and its ability to formulate laws for the state's permanent residents.

Preamble and Article 3 of the erstwhile Constitution of Jam mu and Kashmir stated that the State of Jam mu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.^[72] Article 5 stated that the executive and legislative power of the State extend to all matters except those with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for the State under the provisions of the Constitution of India. 

The Constitution of Jam mu and Kashmir was rendered by The Constitution (Application to Jam mu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 (C.O. 272) issued by the president of India on 5 August 2019 In the 1954 Presidential order, among other things, the Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution were made applicable to Kashmir with some exceptions.^[73] The state legislature further modified these, as well as added "preventive detention laws" that it exempted from human rights challenges for twenty-five years.^[73] According to constitution, the autonomy and special status granted to the state of Jam mu and Kashmir makes it possible "for it to have rather lower standards of human rights".^[74]

The state government officials of Jam mu and Kashmir have issued "permanent resident certificates". However, these certificates differ by gender.^[78][79] The certificates issued to females are marked "valid only till marriage", while certificates for males have no such markings. If a woman married to an Indian outside of Kashmir, she was denied a new certificate. These certificates are required by the Jam mu and Kashmir state officials from anyone seeking to acquire immovable property, education or employment within the state.^[78] Under the state laws, the Jam mu and Kashmir High Court quashed the appointment of Susheela in 1979 – a Kashmiri-born woman, as assistant professor in the Government Medical College because she was married to a man outside of Kashmir.^[78] Numerous other women – such as Sunita Sharma, Anjali Khosla and others – sued the state government on different but related matters, charging discrimination based on their gender.^[80] These cases were reviewed in 2002 by the full bench of the state's High Court, which overturned the past rulings and found that the state has discriminated based on gender.^[80][79]

In 2004, the Jam mu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed the Permanent Residents (Disqualification) Bill – also known as the Daughter's Bill. The new law sought to deprive daughters of the state's permanent residents^[j] of all their native-born rights and privileges if they marry someone who is not the subject of Jam mu and Kashmir. This law applied only to the female descendants of Kashmir subjects, and does not apply to the male descendants.^[78][81]

According to searches, her its provisions, "the women who married non-state subjects [men from other states of India or abroad] could no longer claim state subject status, would thereby lose both preferential treatment in government hiring and the ability to acquire new property in the state". The opponents to this bill argued that this is a "violation of Kashmiri women's fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution" and that the bill discriminated human beings by their gender.^[82] The supporters argued that if this bill failed to pass it "would be the end of constitutionally guaranteed autonomy for Jam mu and Kashmir" and that the law was created to "protect the ethnic identity of the people of Jam mu and Kashmir".^[82] The bill was supported by the state-based Jam mu & Kashmir National Conference Party and Jam mu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party, but challenged by the Indian National Congress party. It was reintroduced in J&K legislative houses in August 2004 as an amendment to the state constitution, but it failed to pass the Upper House of the state by the required two-thirds majority.^[83]

In 2010, the Permanent Residents (Disqualification) legislation was reintroduced in the state's legislative houses, with support from the two main state-based parties.^[84] It again attracted criticism that "such bills have no sanction in the legal and constitutional history of the state or in Article 370".^[79]