India's top court to hear Kashmir statehood plea
The hearing, scheduled for August 8 in the Supreme Court, follows an application filed by two residents of the Muslim-majority territory, where a separatist insurgency has raged for years.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government in August 2019 revoked Kashmir's limited autonomy and brought it directly under federal control.
The move was accompanied by mass arrests and a communications blackout that ran for months as India bolstered its armed forces in the region to contain protests.
The removal of Article 370 of the constitution, which enshrined the Indian-administered region's special status, was challenged by Kashmir's pro-India political parties, the local Bar Association and individual litigants.
The Supreme Court in December 2023 upheld removing the region's autonomy but called for Jammu and Kashmir, as the Delhi-administered area is known, to be restored to statehood and put on a par with any other Indian federal state "at the earliest and as soon as possible".
"We have moved an application seeking a definitive timeline for the restoration of statehood," said the petitioners' lawyer, Soayib Qureshi.
"It has been quite some time since the court asked for it and elections have also been successfully held."
Last November, Kashmir elected its first government since it was brought under New Delhi's direct control, as voters backed opposition parties to lead its regional assembly.
But the local government has limited powers and the territory continues to be for all practical purposes governed by a New Delhi-appointed administrator.
Kashmir has been divided between India and Pakistan since the neighbours were granted independence from British rule and partitioned in 1947.
Indian security forces were deployed in force in the Himalayan territory on Tuesday, eyeing protests demanding the restoration of its special status.
sai/pjm/mtp
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
What's a ‘Secondary Tariff' Like the One Trump Imposed on India?
In his second term as US president, Donald Trump has used tariffs as a blanket solution to pursue a wide range of goals: increasing domestic manufacturing and foreign market access, boosting federal revenue, and even punishing the government of Brazil for prosecuting his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro. Now he's deployed a tool he calls a 'secondary tariff' in an effort to get countries to distance themselves from US adversaries. On Aug. 6, Trump announced that such a tariff on imports from India would take effect in 21 days. On top of an existing 25% levy on goods from India, he added an additional 25% tariff to penalize India for buying oil from Russia.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Apple set to dodge bulk of India tariffs
Apple (AAPL) is set to largely escape the Trump administration's upcoming promise of 50% tariff on goods made in India destined for the US. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that Apple's semiconductor-powered devices, which include its iPhone, will be unaffected by Trump's 25% 'reciprocal' tariffs set to go into effect Thursday. The same goes for an upcoming promise of an additional 25% levy related to India's use of Russian oil that is set to be in place in about 3 weeks' time. IPhones and other similar products will be subject to a separate tariff authority which has not yet been unveiled. Apple said during its most recent earnings call that it made the majority of its US-bound iPhones in India. The news comes after The White House announced that Apple will announce an additional $100 billion investment in US manufacturing during a 4:30 pm ET press event Wednesday. That's in addition to the $500 billion Apple said earlier this year it would invest in the country. Trump has criticized Apple's decision to move manufacturing from China to India and not the US, saying during his May trip to the Middle East that he had a 'little problem' with CEO Tim Cook. Other Trump administration officials have also lambasted Apple for not producing its phones in the US, with trade adviser Peter Navarro calling it the 'longest-running soap opera in Silicon Valley,' during a July interview with CNBC. But according to experts, it would take years for Apple to stand up a smartphone supply chain base in the US. What's more, there are no phone manufacturers in the country and not enough workers to fill the necessary roles. Todd Weaver, developer of Purism's Liberty Phone, a privacy-centric smartphone that uses US-built electronics, says it took his company years to set up the facilities and source the necessary components to ensure the phone's processing and communications features all come from America. Even so, he explained, the phone's body is still made overseas. Apple began expanding its supply chain beyond China following the lockdowns and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. But it started specifically concentrating US iPhone manufacturing in India to avoid Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. Apple hasn't been entirely immune from the impact of tariffs, though. In Q3, the company said it took an $800 million hit from Trump's levies and it expects an additional $1.1 billion in charges in the fourth quarter. While Apple might be able to dodge tariffs on goods out of India, the company isn't entirely out of the woods. The Trump administration is expected to unveil the results of its Section 232 investigation into semiconductor tariffs, which could impact everything from smartphones to automobiles. The exact timing for the tariff announcement is still up in the air, but Trump has said he could reveal them as soon as next week. Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
