Skip to main content

Colonial legacy? Scrutinizing legal challenges to abrogation of J&K’s special status

By Anuj Bansal, Sandeep Pandey*
In an unprecedented move to fulfill its manifestoed promises, the Central government has, through a Presidential Order, rendered Article 370 of the Indian Constitution inoperative ipso facto. While the frenzy of netizens has hailed it as a firm footing towards full integration of the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into the Union of India, certain legal infirmities could pose a stiff challenge to the Presidential action and thus halt New Delhi’s objective.
To begin with, there is much speculation as to whether a unilateral mending of the status quo of J&K is constitutionally permissible? However, a plain reading of Article 370 (1) of the Indian Constitution clarifies that the President of India, in concurrence (consultation in case of subjects as contained in the Instrument of Accession, 1948) with the Government of the State of J&K, can extend the applicability of all or any of the parts of the Constitution to the state.
The question, therefore, is to determine if Governor’s concurrence is tantamount to the concurrence of the state legislature. Supporters of this order will rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohd Maqbool Damnoo v State of J&K to establish that a Governor is legally competent to give concurrence as stipulated in Article 370; but a closer perusal of this issue in light of the Constitution of J&K clarifies that the aforesaid case was only concerned with the replacement of the erstwhile titular head Sadar-i-Riyaasat with the Governor.
Furthermore, Resolution of the Constituent Assembly of the state of J&K dated August 19, 1952 contains that the Governor, even though the Head of the State, is to be recommended by the Legislative Assembly through election. The two are, therefore, distinguished. That the legislature cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly is an undisputed legal principle and the Centre’s attempt to use Governor’s concurrence as a proxy for the Legislative Assembly is unlikely to pass the judicial scrutiny.
More problematic, however, is the addition of Article 367 (4) by the virtue of this order; which is in fact a Constitutional Amendment and beyond the scope of a Presidential Order under Article 370 (1) because Article 370 (1) gives President the right to only apply the provisions of Indian Constitution to the State of J&K and not amend them.
A catena of cases has settled the legal position in this regard, holding that no executive order can amend the law. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that even the legislative powers of the President under the Indian Constitution do not extend to making amendments to the Constitution, leave aside his executive powers.
At this juncture, replacement of the phrase Constituent Assembly under Article 370 (3) with Legislative Assembly deserves a special mention. Considering that the addition of Article 367 (4) as done by the order is constitutionally impermissible, Article 370 seems to have obtained permanence. The Supreme Court, in State Bank of India v Santosh Gupta has unambiguously ruled that Article 370 ceases to have operation if and only if the Constituent Assembly of the State of J&K recommends so.
Critics may choose to discard its permanence by arguing that the role of the Constituent Assembly of the State of J&K had ceased to exist with its dissolution, but Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K outrightly rejects this contention. In Sampat Prakash, the Court had emphasized that the Constituent Assembly of the State of J&K in fact desired that Article 370 shall continue to operate with one modification that it had recommended.
Legal sophistry indulged in by the government is even more indefensible because in the entire process concurrence of nobody from the state of J&K was involved
One might be tempted to be misguided by the marginal note to Article 370 which reads it as a “temporary provision”. What has to be understood is that the usage of the term temporary does not connote the temporariness of the special status conferred upon the state, but rather the arrangements between the Union of India and the State of J&K.
Some historical context holds relevance here. The actual arrangement of the two entities was to be determined after the Constituent Assembly of J&K would have been formed. Thus, framers of the Indian Constitution contemplated a provision for the meanwhile and had left the final call of its continuance or abrogation with the Constituent Assembly of J&K.
This argument finds support in the observations of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kaul v State of J&K, and one can therefore establish that even though the marginal note to Article 370 purports it to be of a temporary nature, its permanence is a judicially admitted fact.
Morally, the legal sophistry indulged in by the government is even more indefensible because of the fact that in the entire process concurrence of nobody from the state of J&K was involved. Governor is an appointee of the Central government and hence cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to represent the interests of the people of J&K.
It reminds one of the colonial days when the powers that be used to rule through their representatives, not considering the inhabitants of the land where they were ruling worth any consultation. The constitution, prepared through a democratic exercise, has been used in a democratic country to trump democracy itself.
What is worse is that the whole exercise was carried out by creating an atmosphere of terror, suspending civil liberties and stifling people's voices, bringing back the cruel memories of colonial rule. Brute force, on ground and in Parliament, has been used to thrust the Presidential order and Bill for Reorganisation of the State upon the people of J&K. It remains to be seen whether people will accept it without offering any resistance.
While the political narrative that surrounds this order comprises mostly hysteria that we seek not to indulge into, it is no exaggeration to state that there are plentiful legal hurdles that it needs to sustain through. The ball is likely to enter the judicial court soon and lot rests on the Indian Judiciary to clung onto the spirit of Constitutionalism or adore the order despite its barbarism.
---
*Contact: p18anuj@iima.ac.in, ashaashram@yahoo.com

Comments

TRENDING

Mystery around Gujarat PSU 'transfer' of Rs 250 crore to Canadian firm Karnalyte

By AK Luke, IAS (Retd)*
While returning from a Board meeting of the Oil India Limited (OIL) in Ahmedabad some time in 2012, two officers of the Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd (GSFC), Nanavaty and Patel,  saw me off at the airport. They said they were proceeding to Canada in connection with a project GSFC had entered into with a company there. As we were running late, I hastily wished them the best.

J&K continues to be haunted, as parts of India 'degenerate' into quasi-Kashmir situation

By Rajendran Narayanan*, Sandeep Pandey**
“Jab har saans mein bandook dikhe toh baccha kaise bekhauf rahe?” (How can a child be fearless when she sees a gun in every breath?) remarked Anwar, a gardener from Srinagar, when asked about the situation in Kashmir. On November 30, 2019, a walk through an iron gate in a quiet neighbourhood of Srinagar took us inside a public school. It was 11 am when typically every school is abuzz with activity. Not here though.

Indians have made 119 nations their ‘karma bhumi’: US-based Hindu NGO tells Rupani

Counterview Desk
In a stinging letter to Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani, the US-based Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), referring to the report citing his justification for the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) – that “while Muslims can choose any one of the 150 Islamic countries in the world (for residence), India is the only country for Hindus" – has said, he should remember, Hindus have made several countries, including USA, their home.

Savarkar in Ahmedabad 'declared' two-nation theory in 1937, Jinnah followed 3 years later

By Our Representative
One of the top freedom fighters whom BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi revere the most, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was also a great supporter of the two nation theory for India, one for Hindus another for Muslims, claims a new expose on the man who is also known to be the original proponent of the concept of Hindutva.

Dalits rights meet planned on how citizenship law 'negates' Ambedkar's equality focus

By Our Representative
A Dalit rights meet has been planned at the Dalit Shakti Kendra (DSK), Sanand, Ahmedabad district, to discuss implications of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), passed by Parliament on December 10-11, for Dalits, Adivasis and other marginalized sections. Announcing the decision, DSK director Martin Macwan said, the meet would take place on December 25, 2019, at 11.00 am, to commemorate the anniversary of burning of copies of Manusmriti by Dr BR Ambedkar.

What about religious persecution of Dalits, Adivasis, asks anti-CAA meet off Ahmedabad

By Rajiv Shah
A well-attended Dalit rights meet under the banner “14 Pe Charcha” (discussion on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution), alluding to Prime Minister Narendra Modi well-known campaign phrase of the 2014 Parliamentary elections, “chai pe charcha” (discussion over cup of tea), organized off Ahmedabad, has resolved on Wednesday to hold a 14 kilometres-long rally on April 14 to oppose the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), enacted on December 10-11.

'Allow critical thinking': SAARC-sponsored varsity teachers support protesting students

By Our Representative
Teachers of the high-profile South Asian University (SAU), a New Delhi-based international institute sponsored by eight member states of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – have supported “peacefully protesting students and other citizens” against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019 and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Upendra Baxi on foolish excellence, Indian judges and Consitutional cockroaches

By Rajiv Shah
In a controversial assertion, top legal expert Upendra Baxi has sought to question India's Constitution makers for neglecting human rights and social justice. Addressing an elite audience in Ahmedabad, Prof Baxi said, the constitutional idea of India enunciated by the Constituent Assembly tried to resolve four key conflicting concepts: governance, development, rights and justice.

Kerala governor turned History Congress into political arena, 'insulted' Prof Irfan Habib

Counterview Desk
In a signed statement, office bearers of the Aligarh Society of History and Archaeology (ASHA), Prof Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi (president), Prof Jabir Raza (vice-president), Prof Manvendra Kumar Pundhir (secretary) and Prof Farhat Hasan (joint secretary), have said that Kerala governor Arif Mohammad Khan had sought to insult veteran historian Prof Irfan Habib, 88, at the 80th session of the Indian History Congress, even as turning it into his “political arena”.