Chinmaya IAS Academy – Current Affairs Chinmaya IAS Academy – Current Affairs
Related Articles
Advocate says the move was unconstitutional and illegal
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the August 5 notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019, which amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor — The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954 — as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary. The petition filed by advocate M.L. Sharma is likely to be mentioned before Justice N.V. Ramana on Wednesday. The Chief Justice of India and Justice S.A. Bobde, the second senior most judge, are sitting in a Constitution Bench in the Ayodhya title suit appeals. Justice Ramana is ranked third in seniority. Mr. Sharma said his petition refers to how the political leaders of Jammu and Kashmir were detained/arrested before the issuance of the August 5 notification. There was no meaningful legislative or representative debate, he submitted. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner contended. The 2019 notification superseded the 1954 Order and declared that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of J&K, to scrap the more than 60-year-old Order. The government justified the notification by saying that it closes the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The August 5 notification tided over the obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. An amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution, the petitioner said.
