SC tags plea challenging Article 370 with another pending petition

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 14 2019 | 6:17 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered tagging of a PIL challenging the validity of Article 370 of the Constitution, which grants a special status to Jammu and Kashmir and limits Parliament's power to make laws concerning the state, with another pending plea on the issue.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Ashok Bhushan and S K Kaul said the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay would be listed for hearing, along with the other plea, on April 2.

The plea says the special provision was "temporary" in nature at the time of framing of the Constitution and Article 370(3) had lapsed with the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly on January 26, 1957.

A similar plea, challenging Article 370 of the Constitution, has been filed by one Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha.

In his plea, Upadhyay has also sought a declaration from the apex court that the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" on various grounds, including that it is against the "supremacy of the Constitution of India and contrary to the dictum of 'One Nation, One Constitution, One National Anthem and One National Flag'".

The petition claims that the life span of Article 370 was only till the existence of the Constituent Assembly -- January 26, 1950 -- when the national document was adopted.

Article 370 is a "temporary provision" with respect to Jammu and Kashmir and it restricts the applicability of various provisions of the Constitution to the state by "curtailing" the power of Parliament to make laws on subjects which fall under the Union and Concurrent lists, the plea says.

Consequently, it allows the state to accord special rights and privileges to its natives, it goes on to add.

The plea claims that Article 370 empowers the state legislature to frame any law, without attracting a challenge on the ground of violation of the right to equality of people from other states or any other right under the Constitution.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 14 2019 | 6:17 PM IST

Next Story