news details |
|
|
| News that must have rattled Abdullahs, and ilk | | Art 370 in Supreme Court | |
Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 25: The news from the Supreme Court that it would examine the inviolability of Article 370 must have rattled, disturbed and alarmed the Kashmiri leaders like Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah and their ilk. Only on Thursday, these Abdullahs demanded autonomy willfully overlooking the implications of their demand - their demand, if accepted, would mean separation of Jammu & Kashmir from India.
It is for the first time in 66 years that the Supreme Court agreed to "examine the inviolability attached to Article 370 of the Constitution which confers special status on Jammu and Kashmir in comparison to other states".
A bench of Justices S A Bobde and Ashok Bhushan agreed to take up this issue for scrutiny nearly a year after entertaining an appeal challenging a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment striking down reservation in promotion to SC/ST employees of the state government.
In the same judgment, the High Court had termed "Article 370 as inviolable by ruling that even Parliament had no power to amend the provision". This was questioned in a fresh application filed by the petitioner's counsel. The bench agreed to make the Union government a party to the proceedings and asked the petitioner to provide attorney general Mukul Rohatgi with a copy of the plea.
Senior advocate A Mariarputham said those who challenged reservation in promotion for SCs/STs in writ petitions filed in the High Court had not raised the issue of inviolability of Article 370.
Yet, the High Court took the view that "Article 370, even though shown as a temporary provision, is a permanent provision in the Constitution and no changes in Article 370 can be made by the President of India, and more importantly, the HC has held that even Parliament cannot make changes in Article 370".
The High Court had then held: "Resultantly, Article 370, notwithstanding its title showing it as a 'temporary provision', is a permanent provision of the Constitution. It cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended as mechanism provided under Clause (3) of Article 370 is no more available. Furthermore, Article 368 (the amending power of Parliament) cannot be pressed into service in this regard, in as much as it does not control Article 370 - a self contained provision of the Constitution". The petitioners challenged the High Court's views and said Parliament's power was curtailed only with regard to basic structure provisions of the Constitution as per the Supreme Court's landmark Kesavananda Bharati case. "Article 370 is not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India and, as such, is not outside the amending power of Parliament under Article 368".
Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to examine the inviolability of Article 370, it would depend on what stand the Narendra Modi Government takes in the Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
