Sumer Khajuria Advocate
The wrong notion of presumed sovereignty of the J&K State has further been brought on its right interpretation in State Bank of India v Santosh Gupta by the Apex Court that the state of J&K has no vestiage of sovereignty outside the constitution of India, and its own constitution which is subordinate to the constitution of India, thus it is wholly incorrect to describe it being sovereign in the sense of its residents constituting a separate and distinct class in themselves. It is further clarified the Govt. of India in a starred question No 138 of Anil Desai on the floor of the Rajya Sabha on March 11th 2015 that there is no mention of special status to the J&K State thus such position of disinformative exploitation is hygienically washed awey. So far as change of nomenctature of the head of the state is concerned, one cannot over look the development when the nomiclature of the Head of the state being the Maharaja of J&K still subsisting as explanation of the Govt. of J&K under Article 370 (i) (ii) but the amendment there to by way of Presidential order No C.44 dated Nov. 16th, 1952, by way of placing it below as note below such provision without effecting the body of the Principal Article 370. By applying the same method the Head of state was substituted from Sadar-i-Riyasat to Governor by the J&K Constitution, Amendment Act 1965 despite, Karan Singh was recognized as Maharaja of the state under Article 355 of the Indian Constitution after the demise of Maharaja Hari Singh in terms of notification dated 10th July 1961. All that was a mess created by the Pandit Nehru regime which came to be followed by the successive Govt. at the bank of the Parliament, intentionally. A Govt. of its worth by issuance of the Presidential Order C.O 272 dated 5th August 2019 has flushed out all such controversial ambiguous originating provisions by extension of the entire constitution of India in the state of J&K and getting the same assented from the both Houses of the Parliament by means of respective resolutions in both Houses of the Parliament i.e. Rajya Sabha on 5th August 2019, and Lok Sabha on 6th August 2019 after conduct of constructive debate on the subject, being awaited for the last seven decades the step deserves appreciation and uploaded by all with constructive mindset and patriotic approach for the welfare of the state coupled with the safe guards of national interests. The Privisons of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution has a track record of its application in J&K i.e between 26th March 1977 to 9th July 1977, from 6th March 1986 to 7 Nov. 1986, from January 1990 to 9th October 1996, from 18th October 2002 to 2nd Nov. 2002, from 11th July 2008 to 5th January 2009, from 6th January 2016 to 3rd April 2016 and new after with drawl of support by BJP partner from Mehbooba Mufti’s Govt. in 2018 till date. It is a wrong motion that the sovereignty of the state lies with the people of this state only assuming it to be distinct from the rest of the country. To this extent one cannot abdicate the commitments of the state so denoted in the Instrument of Accession, there by the sovereignty of the state so enjoyed by the Maharaja under section 5 of the constitution of J&K Act 1939 was vested with the Indian Republic by declaration of the state of J&K to be integral part of India since 26th Oct. 1947 with the implications of all kinds as stood on 15th August 1947. Thus J&K State being unalienable part of India, the sovereignty of which as stood assumed by the Indian Constituent Assembly in terms of its proceeding dated 14th August 1947 in view of transfer of power with effect from the appointed day 15th August’1947 persuant to the Independence Act 1947, the motion of Separate sovereignty of the J&K State, district from the Union of India is nothing but a bundle of misconceptions, distortions disinformatic in character, either being by innocence or willfully to which our people of the great Nation cannot bear with. The judicial implications of the nature of obictor-dicta have no force in the eyes of law thus cannot be a matter of references.
(Concluded)

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Sumer Khajuria Advocate’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article.

Courtesy: The State Times: 30th October, 2019