NEW DELHI: Brushing aside the contention that the applicability of Indian Constitution to the state of Jammu and Kashmir had frozen after the J&K Constitution came into effect in 1957, the Supreme Court five-judge bench on Tuesday said that there is no provision in the Indian Constitution that bars its applicability over the state.
Hearing a batch of pleas challenging the abrogation of the provision which granted the state special status, the CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench said that Article 5 of the J & K Constitution categorically showed the application of the Indian Constitution to J&K.
“The net consequence would be that the Constitution of India over J&K would stand frozen as of 1957,” the bench, also comprising of Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, said.
“No further development in Indian constitution can apply to J&K according to you. How can that be accepted? If Article 370 ceases to operate and Article 1 continues to operate – J&K is an integral part of India. Su rely, the jurisdiction of every democratically elected institution is not excluded in... There has to be then a provision in Indian Constitution which excludes its applicability to J&K,” the bench said.
The court also said, “Article 5 says that the legislative and executive powers of the State would extend to all matters except those with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws. That means the provisions of the Indian Constitution. That postulates that the Indian Constitution does apply to J&K. Unless we accept that Article 370 existed till 2019, there would be no trammel on the jurisdiction of parliament. If we accept your argument, there would be no restraint on the power of parliament.”
The remarks were made as Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi argued that all the powers conferred under Article 370 ceased to operate once the J & K Constitution was enacted. Drawing court’s attention to the fact that accession of Kashmir was based on the condition that it would retain its internal sovereignty and not be bound by the Indian Constitution, Dwivedi also said that “Merely because Kashmir had ceded external sovereignty, it does not mean that internal sovereignty was also ceded.”
Considering Dwivedi’s submission, Justice SK Kaul while laying emphasis on the fact that Article 370 had inadvertently remained on the statue said that it would be difficult to accept that Constituent Assembly debates amounted to an assurance of Article 370 dissolving itself.
‘Pinpoint role of cleric in conversion’
Conversion is permissible per se, the Supreme Court remarked on Tuesday as it directed UP government to pinpoint the specific role attributed to Islamic cleric Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui in the case of alleged running of mass conversion racket. A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said, “Conversion per se is permissible. What was the material before HC? If he hasn’t done any mischief after being enlarged on bail, we can say that… How long has he been in custody.”