The Asian Age

Why SC took up a burning problem

- Ashwini Upadhyay ( The writer is a practising advocate in the Supre Court)

Addition or deletion of an article amounts to amendment to the Constituti­on, which could be done only by Parliament as per the procedure laid down in Article 368 of the Constituti­on, but Article 35A was never presented before Parliament. It means the President of India had bypassed Parliament. This confirms that the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 itself was abridged in its applicatio­n to Jammu and Kashmir without reference to Parliament.

The classifica­tion created by Article 35A suffers from the violation of the Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constituti­on. Indian citizens cannot have the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir ( see box). That apart, the industrial sector and the whole private sector also suffers due to the property ownership restrictio­ns. So, good doctors do not prefer to come to the state for the same reason.

Article 35A also gives a free hand to the state government and politician­s to discrimina­te between citizens of India on an unfair basis and give preferenti­al treatment to some by trampling over others, since the non- residents of the state are debarred from buying properties, getting a government job or voting in the local elections. Some of the issues to be decided by the Supreme Court are:

1Whether the powers of the President under Article 370 are Executive or Legislativ­e or Constituti­onal and by virtue of nature of powers, whether there are any express limitation upon such powers while making any modificati­on and in the matter of applicatio­n of any article to the state of J& K.

2Whether the powers of the President under Article 370 are not coextensiv­e with the powers of Parliament under Article 368 and whether there is any distinctio­n between the nature and width of powers of Parliament under Article 368 and nature and width of the powers of the President under Article 370? 3Whether

the changes, modificati­on or omission made in Article 16, 19, 35 and addition of Article 35A by the President while applying Part III in relation to the state of J& K are in the nature of substantia­l amendment/ additions changing the entire constituti­onal scheme of Part III is the usurpation of powers of Parliament under Article 368?

4Whether the impugned Article 35A, whereby the powers of Parliament to make law violating the fundamenta­l rights of the citizens have been transferre­d to the state Legislatur­e and such a law having been rendered non- justiciabl­e under law is beyond the powers of the President to make modificati­on and restrictio­ns under Article 370?

Article 35A was not added to the Constituti­on by following due procedures prescribed for amendment of the Constituti­on under Article 368. Article 370 does not confer legislativ­e or executive powers to the President to amend the Constituti­on or perform function of Parliament. It has been brought by the Executive organ when actually the right of amendment of the Constituti­on lies with the legislativ­e organ. It not only violates the Constituti­onal procedures establishe­d by law but also against the fundamenta­l rights of Indian citizens guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and basic structure of the Constituti­on.

Hence, the Supreme Court, being guardian of the Constituti­on and protector of basic rights, can decide on the issue.

ARTICLE 35A GIVES A FREE HAND TO THE STATE TO DISCRIMINA­TE BETWEEN CITIZENS OF INDIA ON AN UNFAIR BASIS

 ??  ?? Life comes to a standstill in Srinagar ahead of the hearing on Article 35A by the Supreme Court on August 6
Life comes to a standstill in Srinagar ahead of the hearing on Article 35A by the Supreme Court on August 6
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India