NC, PDP Criticize Centre Over L-G’s Authority to Nominate J&K MLAs

Fast Summary

• Issue: Several political parties, including the ruling National Conference (NC), opposition PDP, and CPI(M) in Jammu and Kashmir, criticized the Center’s stand on allowing the lieutenant Governor (L-G) to nominate five MLAs to the J&K Legislative Assembly without consulting the elected government.
• opposition Statements:

– NC leader Tanvir Sadiq condemned L-G nominations as contempt for people’s mandate and a threat to parliamentary democracy.
– PDP president Mehbooba Mufti called it a “subversion of democratic principles” aiming to override public mandate in India’s only Muslim-majority region.
– CPI(M) leader M.Y. Tarigami termed it an erosion of democratic norms following earlier concerns about biased delimitation exercises in J&K.

• Concerns highlighted:

– Critics alleged that nominated members could skew legislative outcomes, especially during hung assemblies, favoring the ruling party at the Centre.
– Amended laws empower L-G to nominate two women,two Kashmiri Pandits,and one resident from Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK).
– Delimitation complaints mentioned arbitrary seat allocation favoring one region over another despite population differences.

• Legal Context: According to Section 15 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019), these nominations fall outside the authority of elected governments. The matter has been contested before courts.

Indian Opinion analysis

The recent move by the Central Government has drawn sharp criticism regarding its implications for representative governance in Jammu and Kashmir. Allowing unelected individuals like the Lieutenant Governor to appoint MLAs diminishes standard democratic practices tied closely with “aid and advice” from elected representatives. Such actions risk weakening trust among local populations already grappling with political sensitivities.Critics view this as an attempt by New Delhi to centralize control under indirect means-a concern amplified by alleged gerrymandering during past delimitation efforts.

The future legislative balance may also be tilted unfairly if these nominated members influence decision-making processes beyond their intended representational roles. Regular consultation between state-level governments and New Delhi could be key toward mitigating sentiments of disenfranchisement while preserving federal structures aligned with India’s constitutional framework.

It remains essential for concerned voices-both within governance structures like Omar Abdullah’s government or legal avenues-to test claims on constitutionality through obvious methods that prioritize long-term principles over short-lived gains.

Read more: The Hindu