Centre refuses to take stand on J&K laws

Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud that it raised Constitutional issues after which the court referred the matter to a three-judge bench and set six weeks for final disposal.

By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Published:July 18, 2017 3:45 am
highway liquor ban, supreme court liquor ban, chandigarh highway, india news, indian express news Supreme Court of India (File Photo)

The Centre on Monday refused to take a stand in the Supreme Court on a petition challenging Article 35A of the Constitution which enables Jammu and Kashmir to make special laws for its permanent residents saying the question was “very sensitive” and required “larger debate”.

Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud that it raised Constitutional issues after which the court referred the matter to a three-judge bench and set six weeks for final disposal.

The petition filed by Delhi-based NGO We the Citizens has challenged the Constitutional validity of Article 35A saying it was introduced by the President by way of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. This was done by drawing powers from Article 370 (1) of the Constitution granting special rights to Jammu and Kashmir.

The rules of amending Constitution are laid down in Article 368 and according to this, only Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, the petitioner said.

Article 35A bars Indian citizens, other than those who are permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir from seeking employment, settling in the state, acquiring immovable property or undertaking any trade or business if the state makes any law to that effect and it cannot be challenged before any court.

The petition contended that there cannot be a “class within a class of Indian citizens”. It said that a citizen of India cannot be subjected to prohibition or restriction to get employment, trade and commerce acquisitions of property and assets in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The J&K government has defended the provision saying it had become a settled law. “The instant petition seeks to upset a settled law, accepted and complied with by all,” it said in its affidavit in response to the petition.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. D
    Daya Sagar
    Jul 19, 2017 at 8:37 am
    An humble debate was initiated by me in 2009 on Art 35A of Cons ution of India pointing out that going by text of C.O 48 of 1954 , article 35A 'of' COI is not a modification of some article or of Art 35 but it is a new article added in COI after Art 35 simply through a Presidential order ( executive order ) and so 'even' the birth of this article comes under a question mark. Article 35A is a new article added in Cons ution of India after article 35 not by a valid cons utional amendment under Art-368 but has been added simply by a Presidential order {The cons ution (Application to Jammu Kashmir) Order, 1954 C.O. 48 } said to have been issued under the provisions Art 370 (1-d) of Cons ution of India and can not be taken refuge under sub clause (d) of clause (1) of Article-370 of Cons ution of India, as has been the case with Article 35A since adding a new article in COI is an act of amending of cons ution. Daya Sagar Sr Journalist dayasagr45 yahoo
    Reply