Explained | Lok Sabha tables J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 — what it entails

The Lok Sabha on Wednesday, July 26, tabled the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, among six others during the Parliament's ongoing Monsoon Session.

The Bill was introduced by a voice vote amid protests by Opposition members over violence in Manipur. It was tabled amid objection from the Congress party and the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference over claims of the House's "legislative incompetence" and the Bill being labeled "constitutionally suspect."

The newly tabled Bill seeks to amend the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which reorganised the state of Jammu and Kashmir into separate Union Territories, namely Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

It also abolished the J&K Legislative Council and revoked the special autonomous status previously granted to the region under Article 370 of the Constitution.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, seeks to reserve two seats for Kashmiri migrants and one seat for displaced people from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the legislative assembly. One of the two seats for Kashmiri migrants would be reserved for a woman, per the proposed Bill.

According to the provisions of the Bill, the Lieutenant Governor of J&K will nominate the names for those seats.

The Bill was introduced by Union Home Minister of State Nityanand Rai, who argued that it preserved the political rights of Kashmiri migrants and displaced PoK residents and looked after their social and economic development.

However, the National Conference opposed the Bill, with MP Hasnain Masoodi pointing out that it seeks to amend is a "constitutionally suspect law".

"Judicial scrutiny is determined by the apex court... it's against constitutional morality... The constitutionality of the law is being examined," Masoodi said.

Passed on August 5, 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, resulted in the bifurcation of the state and uproar across the nation due to its controversial nature.

Several argued that the Act ended the region's special privileges and was against the Constitution.