article 14 of the Indian Constitution refers to limited government principles and is nearest to constitutionalism theory.

but it also talks about equal protection of law as well. "Protection of law" ensures the people of India to be treated only in accordance with law. Preamble of the Indian Constitution as a part of Indian constitutional law ensures democracy and therefore should president rule in UTs of J&K and Ladakh be treated as unconstitutional?

Sir,

The principle of Democracy incorporated both aspects political and legal. The principle of security is fundamental in a system of democracy.

Arti Aasha Security..... hm.. 🤭

BTW, Thanks for your answer ma'am... but, I asked about something else- constitutionalism..

Aa grave a concern as the constitutional issues of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh is in India and the India Government, what is to be considered is the legal and/or judicial interpretation of:

i. The constitution of India as applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh (including the legality and illegality thereto).

ii. The special status to Jammu and Kashmir among Indian states

iii. The validity or otherwise, of the state of Jammu and Kashmir own Constitution, which was formally adopted by a Constituent Assembly on November 17, 1956, and entered into force on January 26, 1957

iv. Article 370 of India Constitution, which conferred on it the power to have a separate constitution, a state flag, and autonomy of internal administration

v. The repeal of article 35A, which had allowed the state to define permanents residents of the state and certain special rights and privileges attached to such residency, and that includes a brief historical background of the dispute, the legal steps taken to revoke the special status, and legal challenges to that decision.

vi. The act, and the re-constitution of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories, one being Jammu and Kashmir and the other being Ladakh, with effect from 31 October 2019, among other things.

Prior to British India gaining independence in 1947 and the partitioning of the region into the dominions of India and Pakistan, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was one of the 565 princely states that were not under the direct control of the British colonial administration and retained a great degree of autonomy to manage their own affairs (except in the area of defense and foreign relations).

And I make reference to another lawyer’s contribution to the controversies surrounding the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh -

FALQs: Article 370 and the Removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s Special Status

October 3, 2019 by Kelly Buchanan

The following is a guest post by Tariq Ahmad, a foreign law specialist in the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. Tariq has previously contributed posts on Islamic Law in Pakistan – Global Legal Collection Highlights, India’s Regulatory Approach to Uber, and FALQ posts on Beef Bans in India and Proposals to Reform Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws.

This post explains some of the controversies surrounding the recent revocation of the special constitutional status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir under article 370 of India’s Constitution, and the repeal of article 35A, which had allowed the state to define permanents residents of the state and certain special rights and privileges attached to such residency. It also includes a brief historical background of the dispute, the legal steps taken to revoke the special status, and legal challenges to that decision.

Obasi Nwele J I was focusing rather on the constitutionality of J&K and Ladakh being ruled by the President of India as they are given UT status while they did not get their rightful chance of choosing her. I am focusing on the point of being governed by a government elected by the people being so governed. it is called DEMOCRACY......