Monday, Aug 03, 2020 | Last Update : 09:12 PM IST

132nd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra44122827680915576 Tamil Nadu2576131964834132 Andhra Pradesh158764828861474 Delhi1376771233174004 Karnataka134819577252496 Uttar Pradesh92921533571730 West Bengal75516527301678 Telangana6766048609551 Gujarat63675466892482 Bihar5727036637322 Rajasthan4441031216706 Assam4290532385105 Haryana3651929690433 Odisha3491321955236 Madhya Pradesh3353523550886 Kerala259121446383 Jammu and Kashmir2141613127396 Punjab1785311466423 Jharkhand121884513115 Chhatisgarh9608699158 Uttarakhand7593443786 Goa6530466853 Tripura5248346323 Puducherry3806230952 Manipur283117377 Himachal Pradesh2654150813 Arunachal Pradesh19359693 Nagaland19356484 Chandigarh111769819 Meghalaya8742645 Sikkim6582891 Mizoram4702580
  India   All India  06 Aug 2019  J&K bifurcation: Top lawyers divided over move’s validity

J&K bifurcation: Top lawyers divided over move’s validity

THE ASIAN AGE. | PARMOD KUMAR
Published : Aug 6, 2019, 2:02 am IST
Updated : Aug 6, 2019, 2:30 am IST

While one section claims that it goes against constitutional provisions, the other justified it as wholly in conformity with the Constitution.

Security personnel stand guard during restrictions in Jammu on Monday. Restrictions  and night curfews were imposed in several districts of Jammu and Kashmir as the Valley remained on edge with the authorities stepping up security deployment. (Photo: PTI)
 Security personnel stand guard during restrictions in Jammu on Monday. Restrictions and night curfews were imposed in several districts of Jammu and Kashmir as the Valley remained on edge with the authorities stepping up security deployment. (Photo: PTI)

New Delhi: Eminent legal eagles are divided over the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories — J&K and Ladakh; with one section contending that it goes against the constitutional provisions, and other justifying it as wholly in conformity with the Constitution.

Describing it as “unconstitutional”, Prashant Bhushan told this newspaper: “The bifurcation of J&K and the allocation of subjects can’t be done in the absence of an elected Assembly. It can’t be done by the President with the consent of the governor.”

 

“Both the bifurcation of J&K and the amendment to Article 370(1) relating to the subjects that the Centre can deal with now are unconstitutional as the reorganisation of the state cannot be done without the consent of the state Assembly”, he said.

Similarly, “amending Section 370(1), that defines the subjects on which the Centre would have control and the subjects over with state would have jurisdiction, can’t be altered without the consent of the state legislature,” he added.

Mr Bhushan said: “The bifurcation of J&K requires the consent of the elected Assembly of the state. Also, any amendment through Article 370 to the subjects the Union can deal with in J&K also requires the consent of the J&K Assembly. Can’t be done by just (the) President or the governor’s consent. Unconstitutional.”

 

Article 3 of the Constitution, that provides for formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or the names of existing states, says: “Provided that no bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless... the bill has been referred by the President to the legislature of that state for expressing its views thereon....”

Sub-clause (b)(i) of Clause (1) of Article 370 says that the power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to only to those matters “in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India …”

 

While Mr Bhushan is relying on these two provisions of the Constitution to question the validity of the Centre’s decision, former Lok Sabha secretary-general Subhash Kashyap says that “technically and constitutionally” the bifurcation decision does not offend any provision of the Constitution.

“The absence of the J&K Assembly is no impediment to the requirement of taking the consent of the state Assembly before altering the boundaries of the state or reorganising it. Under President’s Rule, the powers of the state government gets vested in the Central government and similarly the powers of the Assembly get vested in Parliament”, says Dr Kashyap.

 

If the state is under President’s Rule, the former Lok Sabha secretary-general says, then the role of the state government and that of the state legislature would be discharged by the Central government and by Parliament respectively.

Former chief information commissioner and Minorities Commission chairman Wajahat Habibullah says that the bifurcation of the state was not going to solve the problem or achieve greater peace. Any reorganisation of J&K had to be done in consolation with the people of the state and its elected representatives, he said.

Describing the action as politically-driven but unwise, former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee, who served in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, said it was a “very complicated legal issue”. Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi welcomed the decision, asserting that it was “long overdue” and “completely legal ... with no chance of any challenge to it succeeding”.

 

Tags: j&k bifurcation, article 370
Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi