The Supreme Court has adjourned its hearing on a writ petition seeking the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution, giving special status to Jammu and Kashmir, on the ground that it was contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Even as a Bench, comprising Justice Ruma Pal and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy, observed that the petition was filed to meet political ends, it adjourned hearing on the petition filed by the former president of the erstwhile Bharatiya Jan Sangh, Balraj Madhok, following a request from his counsel R.V. Bhasin that he needed time to place additional documents in support of his petition.
Counsel contended that as per the Constitution, the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir were allowed to reside, settle and purchase properties anywhere in the country. However, Article 370 barred citizens from other parts of India from the same benefit in Jammu and Kashmir.
And though the Article itself provided that it was a temporary measure, it did not anywhere specify or define the word "temporary" and now it had outlived its utility.
Though the President could act to declare this Article inoperative, he could do so only on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State.
The petitioner said that when 500 princely States agreed to accede to India and become part of it, there could not be discriminatory treatment between these princely states and the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The fundamental rights of the citizens could not be deprived permanently in the guise of a temporary provision. Further, there could not be two written Constitutions for one country unless it was specifically provided for.
The Constitution itself said that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India but the inequality provision continued to operate even 50 years after Independence.
The petitioner sought a direction
to declare the Article as unconstitutional also on the ground that it had
outlived its utility.