Jammu & Kashmir: Constitutional issues

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.

Constitution of J&K is sovereign

J&K's constitution is sovereign The Times of India, Jul 18 2015

Saleem Pandit

In a landmark verdict amid fresh legal challenges to J&K's special status, the state high court on Friday ruled that J&K's constitution was “sovereign in character“ and its assembly exercised “sovereign power“ to legislate laws. Underlining that J&K's unique character couldn't be challenged or abridged, a bench of Justices Muzaffar Hussain Attar and Ali Md Magrey passed the ruling that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act couldn't be extended to the state because Parliament couldn't make laws for J&K under Article 370. The court had clubbed various petitions of around 550 loan defaulters challenging jurisdiction of the Act. The ruling comes at a time when a thinktank has announced plans to challenge the constitutional validity of the Indian Constitution's Article 35 (A) that bars non-residents from buying property in J&K.

The court said the Article clarifies the existing constitutional and legal position.The court said the Act, enacted in 2002 and amended twice, “adversely impacts the inalienable property rights of state subjects. “The Act is made beyond legislative competence by Parliament to the extent of Jammu & Kashmir, and thus cannot be extended to this state, the court said.

“Any law made by Parliament which affects the laws made by the state legislature cannot be extended and applied to J&K. The court said the Act affects rights of state subjectscitizens state subjectscitizens recognized by the constitution of India and the state. It ruled that Parliament lacks competence to make laws regarding J&K, which would affect the interests of state subjects with regard to their immoveable properties. “It is the state in terms of section 5 of the constitution of J&K, which has the absolute sovereign power to legislate laws touching the rights of its state subjectscitizens and their immoveable properties. It said the sale of immoveable property in pursuance to a civil court decree obtained by a bankfinancial institution in respect of the mortgaged property cannot be made in favour of non-state subjects.The court said the power of Parliament to make laws in respect of J&K is thus circumscribed. “It can make laws for it only where permitted by the state and not otherwise, and that too in accordance with the mechanism prescribed by Article 370 of the constitution of India,“ the court said. SARFAESI Act was enforced on December 17, 2002, to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests. It was amended in 2004 and 2012 to ensure immediate recovery of finances or money due to financial institutions from borrowers. It empowers banks to seize immovable property of defaulters.

Special Status , but no Sovereign Rights for J&K State

Sunil Fernandes , Special Status , but no Sovereign Rights for J&K State "Daily Excelsior" 2/4/2017

There cannot be any autonomy beyond what the Constitution provides, and there can certainly be no azadi

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) has presented the most unlikely of sources for a raging debate on the issue of sovereignty of the State of Jammu & Kashmir vis-à-vis the Union of India.

Parliament enacted the SARFAESI Act to provide for an expeditious and efficacious statutory regime for recovery of bank loans from intrepid loan defaulters. Rather than go through a circuitous and often tortuous process of instituting suits for recovery of monies, the SARFAESI Act enables banks to straightaway take possession and auction the defaulter’s property and lays onus on the loan defaulter to seek judicial redress against the proposed auction of his property by the banks.

A clutch of writ petitions were filed in the J&K High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the SARFAESI Act, essentially on the ground that the law was ultra vires to the statutory provisions contained in a host of Local Laws prevalent in the State of J&K, which prohibit transfer of land from a ‘State Subject’ to a ‘non-State Subject’. Ergo, the writ petitioners contended that even if a State Subject has defaulted in repaying his bank loans, the banks still cannot take possession and auction his property under the SARFAESI Act.

The High Court, in its judgement dated July 16, 2015, allowed the writ petitions, and struck down the SARFAESI Act insofar as it applies to the State of J&K. The reasons given by the court were two-fold. First, the court held that SARFAESI was enacted under Entry 11A (Administration of Justice) of List II (State List), and consequentially Parliament had no jurisdiction to frame such a law for J&K, since List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India (CoI) does not apply to that State.

Second, the High Court held that the State of J&K is sovereign in matters in which it had exclusive legislative competence like property rights of its State Subjects and any Central law that adversely affected such rights, even if for wilful default of bank loans, would be unconstitutional.

Several banks led by State bank of India (SBI) challenged the High Court’s decision in the apex court. Notices were issued and detailed arguments spanning several days were addressed. In an erudite, landmark judgement of far-reaching consequence, especially with regards to the constitutional relationship of the State of J&K with the Union of India, the Supreme Court (Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman) set aside the High Court’s verdict (State Bank of India versus Santosh Gupta and Ors — Civil Appeal No 12237-38/2016 dated December 16, 2016).

This led to a furore in Kashmir valley. Eminent authors, writers, jurists and politicians criticised the judgement (obliquely) and yours truly (in far less oblique terms), as yet another infraction of the State’s “sovereignty” and “erosion” of the Special Status of the State of J&K under Article 370 of the CoI. So heated was this debate on sovereignty that the primordial issue of applicability of the SARFAESI Act to the State of J&K was pushed to the backburner.

The Supreme Court defined ‘sovereignty’ in the Italian Marines Case (Republic of Italy versus Union of India — (2013) 4 SCC 721) as “in an area in which a country is sovereign, its laws will prevail over other laws in case of conflict between the two”. In simple terms, sovereignty is an essential attribute of only an independent nation and manifests itself in the primacy that is accorded to the laws of that sovereign over the competing and conflicting laws that may otherwise be in existence within the territorial boundaries of that sovereign power.

The moot question, therefore, is not whether the State of J&K enjoys any vestige of sovereignty, but whether the Union of India enjoys sovereignty over the State of J&K? As the Supreme Court says, the attributes of a sovereign power are (a) Its laws are supreme throughout its territories and (b) In case of conflict with any other law, the law of the sovereign power will prevail. Are the laws of India supreme over the territory of the State of J&K? In case of conflict, will the laws of India prevail over the laws of the State of J&K? Did the State of J&K enjoy ‘limited sovereignty’ prior to December 16, 2017, and was this sovereignty denuded by the apex court in the SARFAESI judgement?

Proponents of the sovereignty doctrine argue that the CoI does not apply in its full force to the State of J&K, but applies only to a limited extent. They say that to the extent the CoI doesn’t apply to the State of J&K, the latter is supreme/sovereign. They contend that the State of J&K did not ‘merge’ into the Union of India (while the other princely States did circa 1947) but merely ‘acceded’ to the Union of India. They invoke the Oct 26, 1947 Instrument of Accession signed by the then ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, to buttress their point.

But before we traverse into this sovereignty debate, it is pertinent to note the fate of the primary issue, that is, the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to the State of J&K. The Supreme Court had already settled this issue way back in 2009 — in the Central Bank of India versus State of Kerala, (2009) 4 SCC 94 — wherein it held that SARFAESI was a “Banking Statute” which falls under Entry 45 (Banking) of List 1 (Union list) and not under Entry 11A of List II. Entry 45 of List 1 stands extended to the State of J&K by virtue of Article 370, and, therefore, all banking statutes automatically applied to the State of J&K. The verdicts pronounced by the Supreme Court enjoy the status of a ‘law’ (Article 141 of CoI) and all authorities in the territory of India, including the J&K High Court, are bound by it and cannot take a contrarian stand. Since the very foundational edifice of the High Court’s judgement was legally flawed, the super-structure of sovereignty that was built on it could not entertain any realistic, sanguine hopes of survival. The High Court proceeded to embellish its flawed reasoning by further holding that the entire CoI doesn’t apply to the State of J&K and that the State of J&K was “sovereign” in areas where the CoI didn’t apply.

Undeniably the Constitution of India doesn’t apply to the State of J&K in toto — only 260 of the 395 Articles of the CoI apply to the State of J&K — but to say that this partial applicability of the CoI to the State of J&K is due to the restrictive barrier of the State’s sovereignty is a dangerously flawed argument.

Section 3 of the J&K Constitution 1956 (CoJK) clearly says that the State of J&K shall be an integral part of India. The Constitution of J&K itself was a result of industriousness and diligence of a duly elected Constituent Assembly for the State of J&K, which wisely placed Section 3 beyond the ambit of amending power of the State Legislature. The State Legislature cannot amend Section 3 by employing the powers of constitutional amendment under Section 147 of CoJK, thereby irrevocably making J&K a part of the Union of India.

Article 1 of the CoI states that India is a Union of States which includes Jammu & Kashmir. Unlike the Preamble of the CoI, the Preamble of the CoJK does not lay any claims to sovereignty. It does not state that a sovereign nation has decided to give unto themselves this Constitution — as is the case with the CoI — but only states that this Constitution is in pursuant to the Instrument of Accession.

The CoJK contains several special distinctive provisions, especially with regards to property rights and rights of education and employment, that are available to and only to its State Subjects and Permanent Residents and not to those residing in the rest of the country. However, pertinently, all these rights are available only if the said State Subjects are “Citizens of India”. Therefore, a State Subject of Jammu & Kashmir, residing, say, in Pakistan from 1947 and holding Pakistani nationality, will not be entitled to the Special Provisions and benefits as provided for the State Subjects of J&K in the CoJK, as he is not a citizen of India. Therefore citizenship of India is a sine qua non to enjoy benefits or the unique privileges that are available to the State Subjects of J&K.

No doubt, the State of J&K enjoys a sui generis (unique) relationship with the Union of India. It has its own Constitution and its own Flag. No other State in the country can claim so many exemptions to the Constitutional provisions and Central Laws as the State of J&K. It is definitely first amongst equals — stands highest amongst the other States in the Indian Union — in terms of its constitutional relationship with the Union of India.

At the request of the Government of J&K, the Centre amended SARFAESI Rules and carved out an exception, exclusively for the State of J&K, to the effect, that the State Subject property cannot be sold to a non-State Subject under a SARFAESI auction. This was done in due deference to the J&K Local Laws prohibiting such a transfer and is symptomatic of the special constitutional status that the State of J&K enjoys in the Indian Union. (This exception for the State of J&K in the SARFAESI Rules was missed by the J&K High Court in its judgement and was yet another ground for its eventual setting aside by the Supreme Court.)

But being ‘special’ does not mean the same as being ‘sovereign’. The State of J&K enjoys its special status due to a provision contained in the Constitution of India (Article 370) and not on the basis of any law that originates in the State of J&K or enacted by the Legislature of the State of J&K. Article 370 is the singular source, the fountainhead from which the streams of unique powers enjoyed by that State flow. This uncontroverted fact should itself lay to rest all arguments in favour of the State’s sovereignty.

The CoI envisages a federal scheme of distribution of legislative powers between the Union Government and the State regime. The Union Government has exclusive powers of legislation under List I and concurrent powers of legislation under List III (Concurrent List). Why just J&K, the other constituent States in the Union of India enjoy exclusive legislative competence over subjects that are covered under List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the CoI. A fortiori, does it mean that they are sovereign? The answer is an emphatic “No”. The powers enjoyed by the States, under List II, and by the State of J&K, are due to the scheme of legislative distribution of powers as envisaged in the Constitution of India itself. Therefore, where is the question of any State, including that of J&K, claiming sovereignty for itself? J&K was never sovereign prior to December 16, 2016, and it certainly hasn’t lost its non-existent sovereignty by virtue of the Supreme Court’s SARFAESI judgement post-December 16, 2016. The verdict only clarifies the correct legal position. It only states, albeit with lucidity and precision, what ought to have to been obvious to everyone: That the State of J&K has no “vestige of sovereignty outside the Union of India”. That is because the Union of India is sovereign in all territories that constitute India, and no part or State thereof can contend otherwise, even by resorting to the semantics of ‘limited/residual sovereignty’; ‘non-merger”; ‘accession’ etc.

J&K HC: SARFAESI cannot be enforced

The Times of India, Dec 18 2016

AmitAnand Choudhary 

Reminds HC Its People Are Indian Citizens First

Though Jammu & Kashmir enjoys special status under Article 370, it cannot claim sovereignty outside the Indian Constitution and its residents are “first and foremost“ citizens of India, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R F Nariman set aside the judgement of J&K high court which had held that the state enjoyed sovereign powers to legislate in respect of laws touching the rights of its permanent residents with respect to their immovable properties.

The court said even though J&K had its own constitution, it cannot override provisions of the Indian Constitution. The bench ruled that J&K did not have sovereign powers and it was part of the country's federal structure.

“It is thus clear that the state of J&K has no vestige of sovereignty outside the Constitution of India and its own constitution is subordinate to the Constitution of India. It is therefore wholly incorrect to describe it as being sovereign in the sense of its residents constituting a separate and distinct class in themselves.The residents of J&K, we need to remind the high court, are first and foremost citizens of India,“ it said. “There is no reference to sovereignty . Neither is there any use of the expression `citizen' while referring to its people. The people of J&K for whom special rights are provided in the Constitution are referred to as permanent residents under Part III of the constitution of J&K... the constitution of J&K has been made to further define the existing relationship of the state with the Union of India as an integral part thereof,“ it said.

Referring to Section 10 of J&K constitution which says permanent residents of the state shall have all rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India, the bench said, “They are governed first by the Constitution of India and also by the Constitution of J&K...We have been constrained to observe this because in at least three places the HC has gone out of its way to refer to a sovereignty which does not exist.“

Rejecting the HC's contention that both Constitutions were expressions of the sovereign will of the people, the bench said matters of national importance were with the Centre and those of local concern with the state. “...There is no dual citizenship,“ it said.

The court passed the order on an appeal filed by the State Bank of India challenging the J&K high court's verdict that various provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, were outside the legislative competence of Parliament, as they would collide with Transfer of Property Act of J&K.

“It is rather disturbing to note that various parts of the judgement speak of the absolute sovereign powers of the state. It is necessary to reiterate that Section 3 of the Constitution of J&K, which was framed by a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise, makes a ringing declaration that the state of J&K is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India. And this provision is beyond the pale of amendment,“ the bench said.

SC: state does not enjoy sovereign powers

Tax Heal

J&K HC rules: SARFAESI can not be enforced

By CA Satbir Singh | October 9, 2015

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be enforced in the State of J&K

• The provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ) can be availed of by the banks, which originate from the State of J&K for securing the monies which are due to them and which have been advanced to the borrowers, who are not State subjects and residents of the State of J&K and who are non State subjects/non citizens of the State of J&K and residents of any other State of India excepting the State of J&K.

FULL TEXT:

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Bhupinder Singh Sodhi

v.

Union of India

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR AND ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, JJ. OWP NOS. 1031 OF 2004 AND 530 OF 2007

JULY 16, 2015

P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate. A. Haqani and M.A. Qayoom, Advs. for the Appellant. R.A. Jan, Ld. Advocate Z.A. Shah, Ld. Sr. Advocate Hanan, Adv. and S.A. Makroo Ld. ASGI for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Muzaffar Hussain Attar- The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short the Act of 2002) was enacted by the Parliament in the year 2002. It was enforced on 17th December, 2002. The purpose of the Act is to regulate scrutinization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of 2002 was amended in the year 2004 and 2012.

2. The legislative evolution, in the field of financial matters of Banks reached to its zenith by the enactment of Act of 2002. It was enacted to facilitate and ensure immediate recovery of finances/money which was/is due to financial Institutions from the borrowers.

3.In the fast changing global financial scenario, the recovery of finances/ money by the lending banks/financial Institutions, from borrowers in our country would proceed on snails pace, thus, affecting the financial health of country. In order to meet the domestic and global financial challenges, it was deemed imperative and essential to have a legislation, which would ensure speedy and hassle free recovery of finances/money from the borrowers/loanees. On proper appraisal of the issues, it was found that the slow speed with which the money is being recovered by the banks/financial Institutions, in view of existing legal system and further for the reason that some of the borrowers/loanees would delay payment of finances/amount by adopting different delaying tactics, it was deemed necessary to enact a law which would arm the financial institutions/banks to recover money without delay.

4. For the overall growth and development in different walks of life and to keep pace with the ever changing financial scenario of the world and further to ensure that the country does not lag behind in its overall growth in all the related fields, it was deemed necessary to enact a law which would ensure immediate, speedy and hassle free recovery of finances/money from the borrowers/loanees. It further appears that because of withholding of the huge amounts by the borrowers/loanees, without any just and reasonable cause, the industrial, agricultural and technological development of the country was badly affected. The huge public interest would suffer by the dubious tactics employed by few individuals, who, illegally and immorally, at the cost of public interest, would make huge benefits, by retaining public money, which they received from the banks/financial Institutions. It is people’s money, which is deposited in the banks/financial Institutions. This money is to be spent for the overall benefit of the people at large, which solemn purpose is/was being defeated by individual borrowers/loanees by not repaying amounts within the time frame fixed in the agreements arrived at between the borrowers/loanees and banks/financial Institutions.

5. Initially, in order to overcome the aforestated difficulties, the Parliament enacted “Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks & Financial Institutions Act 1993” (for short the Act of 1993). With the passage of time, it was found that the Act of 1993 could not measure up to the expectations of the banks/financial Institutions, in as much as, the speed, which was required for recovery of finances/money, was not achieved.

6. It is in this backdrop that the Act of 2002 was enacted to secure the financial interests of the nation.

7. Section 2(a) of the Act of 2002 defines Appellate Tribunal. Clause (b) defines ‘Assets Reconstruction and Clause 2(c) defines ‘banking’. Similarly ‘Banking Company’, ‘Power’, ‘Borrower’, ‘Debt’, ‘Default’, ‘Financial Assistance’, ‘Financial Assets’, ‘Financial Institutions’, ‘Hypothecation’, ‘Non Performing Asset’, ‘Property’, ‘Secured Creditor’, ‘Secured Debt’ and ‘Secured Interest’, also stand defined by section (2) of the Act, 2002. The aforesaid relevant clauses are taken note of :

“2.Definitions :–( 1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–

(a) “Appellate Tribunal” means a Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993);

(b) “asset reconstruction” means acquisition by any securitization company or reconstruction company of any right or interest of any bank or financial institution in any financial assistance for the purpose of realization of such financial assistance;

(c) “bank” means-

(i) a banking company; or (ii) a corresponding new bank’ or (iii) the State Bank of India; or (iv) a subsidiary bank; or [(iva) a multi-State co-operative bank; or]. (v) Such other bank which the Central Government may, by notification, specify for the purpose of this Act; (d) “banking company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause ( c ) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);

(e)** ** ** (f) “borrower” means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower of a securitization company or reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance;

(g) & (h)** ** ** [(ha) “debt” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993);

(i) “Debts Recovery Tribunal” means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993);

(j) “default’ means non-payment of any principal debt or interest thereon or any other amount payable by a borrower to any secured creditor consequent upon which the account of such borrower is classified as non-performing asset in the books of account of the secured creditor [***];

(k) “financial assistance” means any loan or advance granted or any debentures or bonds subscribed or any guarantees given or letters of credit established or any other credit facility extended by any bank or financial institution;

(l) “financial asset” means debt or receivables and includes—

(i) a claim to any debt or receivables or part thereof, or charge on, immovable property; or (ii) any debt or receivables secured by, mortgage of, or charge on, immovable property; or (iii) a mortgage, charge, hypothecation or pledge of movable property; or (iv) any right or interest in the security, whether full or part underlying such debt or receivables; or (v) any beneficial interest in property, whether movable or immovable, or in such debt, receivables, whether such interest is existing, future, accruing, conditional or contingent; or (vi) any financial assistance; (m) “financial institution” means—-

(i) a public financial institution within the meaning of section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (ii) any institution specified by the Central Government under sub-clause (ii) of clause(h) of section 2 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993); (iii) the International Finance Corporation established under the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958 (42 of 1958); (iv) any other institution or non-banking financial company as defined in clause (f) of section 45-1 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), which the Central Government may, by notification, specify as financial institution for the purposes of this Act; (n) “hypothecation” means a charge in or upon any movable property, existing or future, created by a borrower in favour of a secured creditor without delivery of possession of the movable property to such creditor, as a security for financial assistance and includes floating charge and crystallization of such charge into fixed charge on movable property;

(o) “non-performing asset” means an asset or account of a borrower, which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as sub-standard, [doubtful or loss asset,

(a) in case such bank or financial institution is administered or regulated by any authority or body established, constituted or appointed by any law for the time being in force, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by such authority or body; (b) in any other case, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by the Reserve Bank;] (p) & (s)** ** ** (t) “property” means—-

(i) immovable property; (ii) movable property; (iii) any debt or any right to receive payment of money, whether secured or unsecured; (iv) receivables, whether existing or future; (v) intangible assets, being know-how, patent, copyright, trade mark, license, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature; (u) & (z)** ** ** (zc) “secured asset” means the property on which security interest is created;

(zd) “secured creditor” means any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial institutions and includes—

(i) debenture trustee appointed by any bank or financial institution; or (ii) securitization company or reconstruction company, whether acting as such or managing a trust set up by such securitization company or reconstruction company for the securitization or reconstruction, as the case may be; or (iii) any other trustee holding securities on behalf of a bank or financial institution, in whose favour security interest is created for due repayment by any borrower of any financial assistance; (ze) “secured debt” means a debt which is secured by any security interest;

(zf) “security interest” means right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever upon property, created in favour of any secured creditor and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment other than those specified in section 31;”

8. Chapter II of the Act of 2002, deals with regulation of securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets of Banks/Financial Institutions. Chapter III, which is relevant for disposal of these writ petitions, deals with enforcement of security interest. It commences from section 13. The different sub sections of section 13 provide manner and method for speedy recovery of the secured interest. It also provides for taking over possession of secured assets of the borrower as also the management of the business of borrower with further right to transfer it by way of lease, assignment, or sale for realizing the secured assets. Section 13, which, is beset on all sides by the challenge thrown to it by the writ petitioners, is taken note of :

“13.Enforcement of security interest:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

2. Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).

3. The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower.

[(3A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate [within fifteen days] of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower;

Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District judge under section 17A.]

4. In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:-

(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for releasing the secured asset; [(b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: Provided further that where the management of whole, of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security or the debt;] (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. 5. Any payment made by any person referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (4) to the secured creditor shall give such person valid discharge as if he has made payment to the borrower.

[(5A) Where the sale of an immovable property, for which a reserve price has been specified, has been postponed for want of a bid of an amount not less than such reserve price, it shall be lawful for any officer of the secured creditor, if so authorized by the secured creditor in this behalf, to bid for the immovable property on behalf of the secured creditor at any subsequent sale.]

[(5B)Where the secured creditor, referred to in sub-section (5A), is declared to be the purchaser of the immovable property at any subsequent sale, the amount of the purchase price shall be adjusted towards the amount of the claim of the secured creditor for which the auction of enforcement of security interest is taken by the secured creditor, under sub-section (4) of section 13.]

[(5C)The provisions of section 9 of the Banking regulation act, 1949 (10 of 1949) shall, as far as may be, apply to the immovable property acquired by secured creditor under sub-section (5A).]

6. Any transfer of secured asset after taking possession thereof or take over of management under sub-section (4), by the secured creditor or by the manager on behalf of the secured creditors shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset.

7. Where any action has been taken against a borrower under the provisions of sub-section (4), all costs, charges and expenses which, in the opinion of the secured creditor, have been properly incurred by him or any expenses incidental thereto, shall be recoverable from the borrower and the money which is received by the secured creditor shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by him in rust, to be applied, firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and secondly, in discharge of the dues of the secured creditor and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto in accordance with his rights and interests.

8. If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor, and no further step shall be taken by him for transfer or sale of that secured asset.

9. In the case of financing of a financial asset by more than one secured creditors or joint financing of a financial asset by secured creditors, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise any or all of the rights conferred on him under or pursuant to sub-section (4) unless exercise of such right is agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than [sixty per cent.] in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date and such action shall be binding on all the secured creditors:

Provided that in the case of a company in liquidation, the amount realized from the sale of secured assets shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956):

Provided further that in the case of a company being wound up on or after the commencement of this Act, the secured creditor of such company, who opts to realize his security instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), may retain the sale proceeds of his secured assets after depositing the workmen’ dues with the liquidator in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of that Act.

Provided also that the liquidator referred to in the second proviso shall intimate the secured creditors the workmen’s dues in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and in case such workmen’s due cannot be ascertained, the liquidator shall intimate the estimated amount of workmen’s dues under that section to the secured creditor and in such case the secured creditor may retain the sale proceeds of the secured assets after depositing the amount of such estimated dues with the liquidator:

Provided also that in case the secured creditor deposits the estimated amount of workmen’s dues, such creditor shall be liable to pay the balance of the workmen’s dues or entitled to receive the excess amount, if any, deposited by the secured creditor with the liquidator: Provided also that the secured creditor shall furnish an undertaking to the liquidator to pay the balance of the workmen’s dues, if any.

Explanation-………………

(10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower.

(11) Without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor under or by this section, the secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantors or sell the pledged assets without first taking any of the measures specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (4) in relation to the secured assets under this Act.

(12) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in sub-section (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.”

9. Section 17(A) of the Act of 2002, provides for making of Application to the Court of District Judge in certain cases. This is a special provision made for the borrowers residing in the state of J&K. similarly section 18(B) provides for appeal to the High Court in certain cases, which appeal can be filed by the borrower residing in the State of J&K and who would be aggrieved by any order made by the Court of District Judge u/s 17(A). These provisions are also taken note of :

“17A. Making of application to Court of District judge in certain cases:-

In the case of a borrower residing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the application under section 17 shall be made to the Court of District Judge in that State having jurisdiction over the borrower which shall pass an order on such application.”

“18B. Appeal to High Court in certain cases:-

Any borrower residing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and aggrieved by any order made by the Court of District Judge under section 17A may prefer an appeal, to the High Court having jurisdiction over such Court, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Court of District Judge:

Provided that no appeal shall be preferred unless the borrower has deposited, with the Jammu And Kashmir High Court, fifty percent. Of the amount of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Court of District Judge, whichever is less:

Provided further that the High Court may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five percent. Of the debt referred to in the first proviso.”

10. Section 34 of the Act of 2002 provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any Suit or proceedings in respect of any matter, which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine and it further provides that no injunction shall be granted by the Court or any other Authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act of 2002 or Act of 1993. Section 34 is taken note of :

“34.Civil court not to have jurisdiction:-

No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).”

11. Section 35 of the Act of 2002 provides that the provision of the Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Section 35 is also taken note of :

“35.The provisions of this Act to override other laws:-

The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”

12. Section 36, which prescribes the period of limitation is also reproduced hereunder :

“36.Limitation.

No secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under sub-section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).”

13. Section 37 prescribes that the provisions of the Act of 2002 or rules made thereunder, are in addition to, and not in derogation of the laws, which are mentioned in the said section.

The said provision is taken note of :

37.Application of other laws not barred.-

The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956(1 of 1956), the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force.”

14. Section 38 confers power on the Central Government to make rules. This provision is also taken note of :

“38.Power of Central Government to make rules:-

The Central Government may, by notification and in the Electronic Gazette as defined in clause (s) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the form and manner in which an application may be filed under sub-section (10) of section 13; (b) the manner in which the rights of a secured creditor may be exercised by one or more of his officers under sub-section (12) of section 13; [(ba) the fee for making an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17; (bb) the form of making an application to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (6) of section 17; (bc) the fee for preferring an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 18;] (c) the safeguards subject to which the records may be kept under sub-section (2) of section 22; (d) the manner in which the particulars of every transaction of securitization shall be filed under section 23 and fee for filing such transaction; (e) the fee for inspecting the particulars of transactions kept under section 22 and entered in the Central Register under sub-section (1) of section 26; (f) the fees for inspecting the Central Register maintained in electronic form under sub-section (2) of section 26; (g) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed, in respect of which provision is to be, or may be, made by rules. (3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be mad, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.”

15. The Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) and clause (b)(2) of section 38 read with sub section (4)(10) & (12) of section 13 of the Act of 2002, has framed rules called “The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002”.

16. The petitioners, in all the writ petitions, are those persons, who have borrowed money from different banks/financial Institutions and have hypothecated their properties in favour of the banks/financial Institutions.

17. The notices, u/s 13(2) of the Act of 2002, have been issued by the banks/secured creditors to the petitioners in respect of debt, which has been classified as Non Performing Asset, whereunder they have been asked to discharge in full the liabilities and pay the money due to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice.

18. Section 13(4) confers power on the secured creditor to take the measures for recovering the secured debt which powers are delineated in clause (a), (b),(c) & (d).

19. All the writ petitioners have challenged the notices issued u/s 13(2) of the Act of 2002 on the grounds, which are broadly set out as under :

(a) The Parliament has no power to enact a law which would affect the immoveable property of the State subjects ; (b) article 370 of the Constitution of India restricts power of the Parliament to enact a law which would affect the immoveable properties of the state subjects/citizens of the State of J&K ; (c) creation of an Authority for recovery of secured debts falls within the definition of ‘administration of justice’ and the Central Government has no authority and power to enact a law in this behalf as the List – I, (Union List) of Schedule 7th of the Constitution of India, does not have any such Entry incorporated therein and the Entry – II-A figures in List – III, (Concurrent List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India is not applicable to State of J&K; (d) the legislature of the State of J&K, alone being competent to make laws about the land, immoveable properties, and section 13 of the Act of 2002, which provides that, “notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or 69-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882” is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament ; (e) the constitutional scheme and framework, as projected by the Constitution of India and Constitution of J&K, does not authorize for making of law like the Act of 2002 by the Parliament in respect of the State of J&K ; (f) the limited extension of provision of the Constitution of India with further modifications, would make the Act of 2002 applicable to the country excepting the State of J&K ; (g) in presence of Suits, already instituted for recovery of debt, recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Act of 2002 for recovering the same amount. 20. Mr. A.Haqani, learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners, vehemently argued that the authority created and mechanism prescribed by the Act of 2002 is covered by the expression ‘administration of justice’ and the Parliament has no power to legislate any law in this behalf. Learned counsel, while referring to section 13 of the Act of 2002, was at pains to explain that the authority created and mechanism prescribed by section 13 of the Act of 2002, is in essence, a judicial authority, who is required to act judicially and this being the legal position, the Act of 2002 be declared illegal being beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut v. Lakshmi Chand and Ors reported in 1962 STPL(LE)2091 SC. 2. State of T.N. v. G.N.Venkataswamy and ors Etc.Etc. reported in 1994 STPL(LE)19294 SC. 3. . Associated Cement Companies Ltd., v. PN.Sharma and Another reported in 1964 STPL(LE)3022 SC. 4. Dev Singh and Ors v. The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Others reported in 1987 STPL(LE)13705 SC. 5. S.Ganapathraj Surana v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1992 STPL(LE) 16834 SC. 6. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah and Anr. reported in 1955 STPL(LE)678SC. 21. Mr. M.A.Qayoom, learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners, invited attention of the Court to Article 370 of the Constitution of India and submitted that the mechanism prescribed in the said article for application of laws to the State of J&K, has not been followed. Learned counsel, while referring to article 370, submitted that clause B (i) of article 370 has restricted the power of Parliament, to make laws for the State of J&K, 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 maters specified in the Instrument of Accession. Learned counsel also referred to clause B(ii) of article 370 and submitted that other matters in the Union List may be applied to the State of J&K with concurrence of the Government of the State by the president, which may be specified by an order by the President. He further submitted that this constitutional mechanism has not been followed for application of law to the State of J&K. Learned counsel also referred to an Application/Affidavit filed by the State of J&K in a writ petition, filed in Jammu Wing of the Court and submitted that the State of J&K itself has raised objection in respect of enforcement of the Act of 2002 in the State of J&K. Learned counsel also referred to section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (a State Act) to indicate that application of the Act of 2002 has directly impacted the fields of legislation, for which laws can be exclusively made by the State legislature. Mr. Qayoom, in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon following judgments:-

1. S.Mubarik Shah Naqishbandi v. Income Tax Officer reported in AIR 1971 SC page 120. 2. Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 396. 3. Prem Nath v. State of J&K reported in AIR 1959 Supre Court 749. 4. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P.Singh and anr., reported in AIR 2003 S.C.1029. 5. L&T Mcneil Ltd. v. Govt. of T.N reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 170. 6. K.P.Mohapatra v. Ram Chandra Nayak reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3578. 22. Other learned counsel, appearing for some other writ petitioners, made statement at the bar that they adopt the arguments, which were advanced by Mr. Haqani.

23. Mr. P.N.Raina, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of some writ petitioners, submitted that the expression ‘banking’ which appears in List – I, (Union List) at Entry 45 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, would not authorize the Parliament to make a law like the Act of 2002 for effecting recovery of secured debt from the borrowers. Learned counsel, submitted that ours is a federal Constitution and the different limbs of the State have to confine their executive, legislative and judicial activities to the sphere of their delineated territorial, legal and constitutional jurisdictions. Learned counsel argued at great length by making reference to the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, reported in 1970(1) SCC 248 in case titled Rustom Cavasjee Cooper, Petitioner v. Union of India, Respondent. He read the judgement in extenso to canvass his point that the expression ‘banking’ appearing in Entry 45 of List – I, of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, would not mean and connote making a law for recovery of debt amount from the borrowers. Learned counsel also referred to the Banking Regulation Act 1949 (for short Act of 1949), more particularly, sections 5&6 thereof to indicate that banking has been, for the first time, defined by the said Act of 1949 and it does not refer to recovery of the amount. Besides this, learned counsel referred to article 370 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Raina submitted that the Act of 2002 violates the federal structure of the Constitution of India and it is an intrusion upon the legislative powers of the State Legislature. Learned counsel submitted that the impact of the Act of 2002 has to be considered in the backdrop of federal structure of our Constitution. He further submitted that application of the Act of 2002 to the State of J&K, effectively violates the federal structure of the Constitution. Learned counsel also submitted that preceding the enactment of the Act of 2002, an ordinance was promulgated by the President of India in respect of scrutinization and reconstruction of financial assets, which ordinance was not made applicable to the State of J&K. Mr. Raina further submitted that the Central Government was conscious that such type of legislation would not be applicable to the State of J&K, which occupies a special position in the country. Learned counsel submitted that it is a sufficient indicator that the Act of 2002 would not be applicable to the State of J&K. learned counsel reiterated the argument, which was projected by M/s. Qayoom and Haqani that section 13 of the Act of 2002 has the potential of transferring the interests in the immoveable property of the State Subjects to Non State Subjects, as the bank is a juristic person and most of the banks, who are not banks of the State of J&K, whose Head Offices/Corporate Offices are located outside the State of J&K and whose Board of Directors comprises of Non State Subjects alone, it is not permissible, in view of the State laws, for them to create interest the immoveable property in the State of J&K. For the above stated reasons, more particularly, in the backdrop of article 370 of the Constitution of India, Mr. P.N.Raina, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Act of 2002 cannot be made applicable to the State of J&K. Learned counsel referred to the following judgments:-

1. [1969] 2 SCC 55 2. [1996] 3 SCC 709 3. 1953 SC 375 4. 1958 SC 560 5. 1959 SC 648 6. 1959 SC 749 7. 1969 J&K 77 8. 1970 J&K 77 9. 1970 SC 564 10. 1972 SC 1061 11. 1972 Kerala 27 12. 2000 SC 2181 13. 2002 SC 834 14. 2002 SC 1334 15. 2002 SC 1479/2002(4) SCC 274 16. 2004 SC 2371/2004(4) SCC 311 17. 2007 SC 712 24. Other learned counsel including the Senior Counsel, appearing in other cases, submitted at bar that they adopt the arguments advanced by Mr. P.N.Raina, Senior Counsel. .

25. One of the learned counsel submitted that his case be referred to the Legal Service Authority. Yet another learned counsel submitted that the Act of 2002 would not be applicable to the State of J&K, however, for recovery of advances, made by the bank outside the State of J&K, recourse can be taken to the Act of 2002

26. Mr. R.A.Jan, learned Advocate General, while referring to the Affidavit of State Authority, submitted that the State Government has taken cognizance of the issues involved in these cases. He further submitted that the State Government be given time to take final call on the subject.

27. Mr. Zafar A.Shah, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for J&K Bank, argued at great length. He submitted that in view of Entry 45 of List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Parliament is competent to legislate the Act of 2002. He further submitted that the Central Government has amended the Rules of 2002 and it has been prescribed that while enforcing the Act of 2002, the interests in the immoveable property can be transferred only in favour of the State subject. He also submitted that in view of the amendment made in the Rules of 2002, grievances of the petitioners stand redressed. Mr. Shah, while referring to article 370, submitted that in view of Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 1954 (C.O.48-S.R.O 1610 dated 14.05.1954) issued by the President of India, the Central Government has been authorized to legislate laws in respect of Entries in the List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India including entry 45, which Entry stands extended to the State of J&K in terms of the aforesaid constitutional order. He further submitted that it has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in case reported in (2009) 4 SCC 94 that the Act of 1993 as also Act of 2002 have been enacted in terms of Entry 45 of List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the Authoritative Pronouncement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the issue that enactment fall within the purview of Entry 11(a) of List – III, (Concurrent List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, is rendered irrelevant. Mr. Shah also submitted that huge amounts have crystallized into Non Performance assets. He submitted that withholding of huge amounts by the borrowers is directly and adversely affecting the economic growth of the State of J&K. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon the following judgments:-

1. P.L.Lakhanpal v. State of J&K reported in AIR 1956 SC page 197 2. Mohd Subhan & Ors v. State reported in AIR 1956 J&K Page 1 3. Prem Nath Koul v. State of J&K reported in AIR 1959 SC page 749 4. Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K reported in AIR 1970 SC page 118 5. Jamaluddin v. Abu Saleh reported in 2003(4)SCC page 257 6. Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors reported in 2002(5)SCC page 685 7. Mardia Chemicals v. UOI reported in 2004(4) SCC page 311 8. State of Bombay v. Narottamdas reported in AIR 1951 SC 69 9. Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009(4) SCC page 94 10. State of A.P v. MsDowell & Co. reported in 1996(3)SCC page 709 11. Sunanda Kumari v. Standard Chatered Bank reported in 2007 135 Compcas 604 Kar, ILR KAR 16 12. Abdul Aziz v. PNB reported in III(2006) BC 279 13. A. Venkatramani v. Housing Finance Ltd. dated 28.09.2006 14. M/s Transcore v. Union of India dated 29.11.2006 15. Delhi Bar Association v. UOI reported in 2002(4)SCC. 28. Mr. S.A.Makroo, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is valid and is capable of being enforced in the State of J&K. Learned counsel in support of his submission referred to the judgment titled Suganthi Suresh Kumar-Appellant v.Jagdeeshan-Respondent reported in 2002(1) Supreme 227.

29. Learned counsel, appearing for other respondent banks, in one voice, defended the Act of 2002. They submitted that the Act of 2002 does not impinge either upon the federal structure of Constitution or the State Constitution. Learned counsel referred to (2009) 4 SCC 94, more particularly, paragraph 36 thereto to show that Hon’ble the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Acts of 1993 and 2002 have been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 45 List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

30. In order to appreciate the contentions raised and submissions made at bar, it is deemed appropriate to take note of some of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, which have been made applicable to the State of J&K :

(a) By the Constitution (application to J&K) Order of 1954 (C-0-48-SRO 1610) ; Ministry of Law, New Delhi, 14th May, 1954 (for short order of 1954). (b) Article 14, 19(1) (7), 21, 35 A (amended in terms of Constitution Order) 256 (2), 368 (2), 152, 245, 246 (as applicable to the State of J&K in terms of constitutional order), Article 370 and section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 5 and 6 of the Constitution of J&K, List Ist and III of seventh schedule. “14. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” “Right to freedom 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

(1) All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; and (f) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.” ……………………….. “[(7) The words “reasonable restrictions” occurring in clauses (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall be construed as meaning such restrictions as the appropriate Legislature deems reasonable.]”

“21. Protection of life and personal liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

“35 –A. Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State,-

(a) defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; or (b) conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects- (i) employment under the State Government; (ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State; (iii) settlement in the State; or (iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India any provision of this Part. “256 Obligation of States and the Union

(1)** ** ** (2) The State of Jammu and Kashmir shall so exercise its executive power as to facilitate the discharge by the Union of its duties and responsibilities under the Constitution in relation to that State; and in particular, the said State shall, if so required by the Union, acquire or requisition property on behalf and at the expense of the Union, or if the property belongs to the State, transfer it to the Union on such terms as may be agreed, or in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India.”

“368. [Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor]

(1)** ** ** (2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:

Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in-

(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or (b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or (c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or (d) the representation of States in Parliament, or (e) the provisions of this article, the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislature of not less than one half of the States by resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent.

[Provided further that no such amendment shall have effect in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir unless applied by order of the President under clause(1) of article 370.]”

(emphasis supplied)

“152. Definition

In this Part, unless the context otherwise, requires, the expression “State” does not include the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”

“245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. (2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation.” “246. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List) (2) Parliament, and, subject to clause ( 1 ), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Concurrent List).” PART XXI

TEMPORARY, TRANSITIONAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS

370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to-

(i) 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 as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and (ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify. Explanation.- For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:

Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification”

Section 140 of Transfer of Property Act.

“140. Exemptions of certain instruments from restriction imposed on transfer of immovable property.

Nothing contained in Irshad dated 29th Maghar, 1943, or any law, rule order, notification, regulation, hidyat, ailan, circular, robkar, yadasht, irshad, State Council resolution or any other instrument having the force of law prohibiting or restricting the transfer of immovable property in favour of a person who is not a permanent resident of the State shall apply to— 1[(a) a mortgage of immovable property other than land as defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, Samvat 1995, in favour of—

(i) the life Insurance Corporation of India established under the life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 ( 3 of 1956) and having an office for transacting the business in the State; or (ii) the Industrial Finance Corporation of India established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948; or (iii) the Jammu and Kashmir State Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951; or (iv) the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. or the Industrial Development Bank of India or a Bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and having an office for transacting the business of banking in the State ;or (v) the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India; or (vi) the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi; or (vii) the Unit Trust of India; or 2[(viii) The Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board Constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board Act, 1976;

Provided that in any suit based on such mortgage the mortgaged property shall be sold only to a permanent resident of the State;] 3[(aa) a simple mortgage of land in favour of –

(i) the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. or the Industrial Development Bank of India or a Bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and having an office for transacting the business of banking in the State; or (ii) the Jammu and Kashmir State Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1956; or (iii) the Life insurance Corporation of India established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956; or (iv) the Industrial Finance Corporation of India established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 11948; or (v) the industrial credit and Investment Corporation of India; or (vi) the Housing Urban Development Corporation ltd. new Delhi; or [(viii) The Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board Act, 1976;] 2[(ix) The Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, 3[***], ]; or 4[(x) The Jammu and Kashmir Scheduled Castes and other Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956]; or 5[(x) The Jammu and Kashmir Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Jammu/Srinagar. Provided that in any suit based on such mortgage the mortgaged land shall be sold only to permanent resident of the State, who is a member of an agricultural class for purposes of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, Svt. 1995];

(b) a transfer of immovable proper situate at Katra and the village contiguous to it in favour fo the Vishwayatan Yogashram, a Society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act. No. 21 of 1860) effected in furtherance of the declared purpose of the Society;

1[(c) a transfer of immovable property in favour of Sher-i-Kashmir National medical Institute Trust Srinagar;]

2[(d) a transfer of immovable property situate in District Udhampur acquired or requisitioned on behalf and at the expense of the Union, in favour of National Hydro Electric power Corporation Limited for construction , commissioning, running and maintenance of the Salal

Hydro Electric Project;]

3[(e) a transfer of immovable property by the Government in favour of:-

(i) the Jammu and Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation ltd.; (ii) the Jammu and Kashmir Industries Ltd.; (iii) the Jammu and Kashmir Minerals Ltd.; (iv) the Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation ltd.; (v) the Jammu and Kashmir handicrafts (Sale and Export) Corporation Ltd.; (vi) the Jammu and Kashmir Road Transport Corporation Ltd.; (vii) the Jammu and Kashmir Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.; (viii) the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd.; (ix) the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.; 4[(f) a simple mortgage of immovable property in favour of –

(i) Hindustan Machine Tools, Watch Factory, Zainakote, Srinagar; (ii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having an office for transacting the business in the State; (iii) New India Assurance Company Limited, having an office for transacting the business in the State; (iv) National Insurance Company Limited, having an office for transacting the business in the State; or (v) Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Hyderpora, Srinagar. By their employees respectively, who are permanent residents of the State, for obtaining loan for construction or purchase of residential accommodation in the State.

Provided that in any suit based on such mortgage, the mortgaged property shall be sold only to a permanent resident of the State];

1[(g) a transfer of immovable property in favour—

(i) Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agriculture Science and Technology, established and incorporated under the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Science and Technology Act, 1982, in furtherance of the objects of the university; (ii) Jammu and Kashmir Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited and Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation (State owned Corporations) for Industrial development in the state]; 2[(iii) Jammu and Kashmir Cable Car Corporation Ltd.; 3[(iv) The Jammu and Kashmir Bank ltd.’ 4[(v) the Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Limited.] 1[(h) a simple mortgage of immovable property executed or created in favour of a public financial institution, as specified in section 4-A of the Companies Act, 1956, a Scheduled bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Trustees for the holders of debentures to secure the loans, guarantees, issue of debentures or other form of financial assistance provided for developmental projects in the State of Jammu and Kashmir Like Baghliar Project of Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Limited.

Provided that in any suit based on such mortgage, the mortgaged property shall be sold or transferred only to a 2[a permanent resident of the State or any financial institution or corporation managed and owned by the Government of India];]

3[ (i) a lease of immovable property in favour of (i) Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University established under the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act, 1999; and (ii) Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University established under the Jammu and Kashmir Babab Ghulam shah for fulfillment of the objectives of the University.]” “67- Rights to foreclosure or sale

In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the mortgagee has, at any time after the mortgage-money has become 1[due] to him, and before a decree has been made for the redemption of the mortgaged property, or the mortgage-money has been paid or deposited as hereinafter provided, a right to obtain from the Court 2[a decree] that the mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his right to redeem the property, or 2[a decree] that the property be sold.

A suit to obtain 2[a decree] that a mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his right to redeem the mortgaged property is called a suit for foreclosure. Nothing in this section shall be deemed— 3[

(a) to authorise any mortgagee other than a mortgagee by conditional sale or a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage by the terms of which he is entitled to foreclose, to institute a suit for foreclosure, or an usufructuary mortgagee as such or a mortgagee by conditional sale as such to institute a suit for sale; or] (b) to authorise a mortgagor who holds the mortgagee’s rights as his trustee or legal representative, and who may sue for a sale of the property, to institute a suit for foreclosure; or (c) to authorise the mortgagee of a railway, canal, or other work in the maintenance of which the public are interested, to institute a suit for foreclosure or sale; or (d) to authorise a person interested in part only of the mortgage-money to institute a suit relating only to a corresponding part of the mortgaged property, unless the mortgagees have, with the consent of the mortgagor, severed their interests under the mortgage.” Section 67-A of Transfer of Property Act.

“67-A Mortgagee when bound to bring one suit on several mortgages.

A mortgagee who holds two or more mortgages executed by the same mortgagor in respect of each of which he has a right to obtain the same kind of decree under section 67, and who sues to obtain such decree on any one of the mortgages, shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, be bound to sue on all the mortgages in respect of which the mortgage-money has come due.”

“HIREDITARY STATE SUBJECT

New entrant into State service to be Hereditary State Subject—Definition of “Hereditary State Subject”.

(Private Secretary’s circular order dated 31st January, 1927, published in Government Gazette dated 26th Magh, 1983).

High Highness the Maharaja Bahadur has been pleased to command that in future in the case of every new entrant into State service, the authority empowered to make the appointment should certify that he has satisfied himself after due enquiries that the persons appointed is a hereditary State subject. Further, that in the absence of such a certificate the Accountant General should not pass the pay bill of such State servant without the definite orders of His Highness in Council to the contrary.

For the purposes of this Order the term “hereditary State Subject” will be held to mean and include all persons born and residing within the State before the commencement of the reign of His Highness the late Maharaja Gulab Singh Sahib Bahadur and also persons who settled therein before the commencement of Samvat 1942, and have since been permanently residing therein. The certificate will be given after due enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner in whose charge the candidate for State service resides and the form of such certificate should be submitted by the Accountant General for the approval of His Highness in Council. In the meantime this order will have effect from the date of issue, namely 31st January, 1927. “

Section 5 & 6, 76 of The Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1996(1939 A.D) (for short 1939 AD)

“5. His Highness Inherent powers-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act, all powers, legislative, executive and judicial, in relation to the State and its government are hereby declared to be and to have always been inherent in and possessed ad retained by His Highness and nothing contained in this or any other Act shall affect or be deemed to have affected the right and prerogative of His Highness to make laws, and issue proclamations, orders and ordinances by virtue of his inherent authority.”

THE EXECUTIVE

“6. Vesting of the civil administration in the council- Subject always to the provisions of sections 4 and 5 and subject also to such rules of business and allocation of portfolios and such other directions as to consultations with or reports to and confirmation by His Highness on special matters as His Highness may give from time to time by general or special orders in that behalf, the superintendence, direction and control of the civil administration and government of the State shall be vested in the Council.”

“76. Repeal and saving of Laws and rules- (1) The Regulations specified in Schedule V are hereby repealed to the extent shown in the third column of the said Schedule.

(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of Regulation 1 of 1991 but subject to the other provisions of this Act, all the law in force in the State immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by competent authority.

(3) All notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, jurisdiction vested, forms prescribed, local limits defined, and orders, rules and appointments made under any Regulations, Order, Law or Rule, hitherto in force, which are in force immediately before the coming into operation of this Act d which are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to have been respectively published, issued, conferred, vested, prescribed, defined and made under this Act and shall remain in force until repealed or modified either expressly or by implication by competent authority.”

Section 5 and 6 of Constitution of J&K:

“5. Extent of executive and legislative power of the State- The executive and legislative power of the State extends to all matters except those with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for the State under the provisions of the Constitution of India.”

“6. Permanent residents (1) Every person who is, or is deemed to be, a citizen of India under the provisions of the Constitution of India shall be a permanent resident of the State, if on the fourteenth day of May, 1954—

(a) he was a State Subject of Class I or of Class II; or (b) having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State ,he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to that date. (2) Any person who, before the fourteenth day of May, 1954, was a State Subject of Class I or of Class II and who having migrated after the first day of March, 1947, to the territory now included in Pakistan, returns to the State under a permit for re-settlement in the State or for permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law made by the State Legislature shall on such return be a permanent resident of the State.

(3) In this section, the expression “State Subject of Class I or of Class II” shall have the same meaning as the [State Notification No. I-L/84 dated the twentieth April, 1927, read with State Notification No. 13/L dated the twenty-seventh June, 1932].”

31. In view of the significant constitutional issues raised as also for answering those issues, it becomes necessary to delve, to some extent, into the historical and constitutional development of the relations between the State of J&K and the Union. In this regard, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has referred to these developments in its decision reported in AIR 1959 SC 749 in case titled Prem Nath Koul versus State of J&K. The apex Court has taken cognizance of necessary developments from paragraph 6 to 21. However, paragraphs 6 to 15, which are relevant for the present cases, are taken note of :

“(6) In dealing with this appeal it is necessary to narrate in some detail the events which took place in Kashmir and the constitutional changes which followed them in order to appreciate fully the background of the impugned legislation. A clear under standing of this background will help us to deal with the appellant’s case in its proper perspective. In 1925 Maharaja Hari Singh succeeded Maharaja Pratap Singh as the Rule of Kashmir. It appears that for some time prior to 1934 there was public agitation in Kashmir for the establishment of responsible government. Presumably as a sequel to the said agitation Maharaj Hari Singh issued Regulation 1 of 1991 (1934). The Regulation began with the statement of policy that it was the declared intention of the Maharaja to provide for the association of his subjects in the matter of legislation and the administration of the State and that it was in pursuance of the said intention that the Regulation was being promulgated. This Regulation consisted of 46 sections which dealt with the legislative, executive and judicial power of the Maharaja himself referred to the subjects which should be reserved from the operation of the Regulation, made provision for the constitution of the Legislature of the State, conferred authority on the Council to make rules for specified purposes and referred to other relevant and material topics. It is relevant to refer to only two sections of this Regulation. Section 3 provides that all powers legislative, executive and judicial in relation to the State and its government are hereby declared to be ,& to have been always, inherent in possessed and retained by His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and nothing contained in the Regulation shall affect or be deemed to have affected the right prerogative of His Highness to make and pass regulations, proclamations & ordinances by virtue of his inherent power. Section 30 lays down that no measure shall be deemed to have been passed by the Praja Sabha until and unless His Highness has signified his assent thereto. The Regulation leaves it to the absolute discretion of His Highness whether to assent to such a measure or not.”

“(7) Five years later the Maharaja promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act 14 of 1996 (1939). From the preamble to this constitution it appears that, before its promulgation, the Maharaj had issued a proclamation on 11-2-1939, in which he had announced his decision as to the further steps to be taken to enable his subjects to make orderly progress in the direction of attaining the ideal of active co-operation between the executive and the Legislature of the State in ministering to the maximum happiness of the people. In accordance with this desire the text of the Constitution contained in Regulation 1 of 1991 was thoroughly overhauled and an attempt was made to bring the amended text into line with that of similar Constitutions of its type. This constitution is divided into six parts and includes 78 sections. Part 1 introductory. Part 2 deals with the executive; Part 3 with the Legislature; Part 4 with the Judicature; part 5 contains miscellaneous provisions; and Part 6 provides for repeal and saving and includes transitional provisions. It is significant that S. 5 of this Act, like S. 3 of the earlier Regulation, recognises and preserves all the inherent powers of His Highness, while S. 4 provides that the State was to be governed by and in the name of His Highness, and all rights, authority and jurisdiction which appertain or are incidental to by His Highness except in so far as may be otherwise provided by or under the Act or as may be otherwise directed by His Highness. The other provisions of the Act are all subject to the overriding powers of His Highness specifically preserved by S. 5. As we will point out later on, in substance the Constitutional powers of the Maharaja under the present Act were exactly the same as those under the earlier Act.”

“(8) While the State of Jammu and Kashmir was being governed by the Maharaja and the second Constitution as amended from time to time was in operation, political events were moving very fast in India and they culminated in the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Under S. 7(1)(b) of this Act the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapsed and with it lapsed all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of the Act between His Majesty and the Rulers of the Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the Rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise. The proviso to the said section, however, prescribed that, notwithstanding anything in para (b), effect shall, as nearly as may be, continue to be given to the provisions of any such agreement as therein referred to in relation to the subjects enumerated in the proviso or other like matters until the provisions in question are denounced by the Ruler of the Indian State on the one hand or by the Dominion or Province concerned on the other hand, or are sup[seeded by subsequent agreements. Thus, with the lapse of British paramountcy the State of Jammu and Kashmir, like the other Indian States, was theoretically free from the limitations imposed by the said paramountcy subject to the provisions of proviso just mentioned.”

“(9) On 22-10-1947, the tribal raiders invaded the territory of the State; and this invasion presented a problem of unprecedented gravity before the Maharaja. With the progress of the invading raiders the safety of the State was itself in grave jeopardy and it appeared that, if the march of the invaders was not successfully resisted, they would soon knock at the doors of Srinagar itself. This act of aggression set in motion a chain of political events which ultimately changed of history and political constitution of Kashmir with unexpected speed”.

“(10)On 25-10-1947, the Maharaja signed an Instrument of Accession with India which had then become an Independent Dominion By the first Clause of the Instrument the Maharaja declared that he had acceded to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor-General of India, the Dominion, Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion Authority established for the purpose of the Dominion shall, by virtue of the Instrument of Accession, subject always to the terms thereof and for the purpose only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India on 15-8-1947.”

“(11) We may usefully refer to some other relevant clauses of this Instrument. By cl. 3 the Maharaja agreed that the matters specified in the Schedule attached to the Instrument of Accession were the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State. Clause 5 provides that the Instrument shall not be varied by any amendment of the Government of India Act, 1935, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by the Maharaja by an Instrument supplementary to the original Instrument of Accession. By cl. 7 it was agreed that the Maharaja would not be deemed to be committed to the acceptance of any future Constitution of India nor would his discretion be fettered to enter into agreements with the government of India under any such future constitution. Clause 8 is very important. It says that nothing in the Instrument effects the continuance of the Maharaja’s sovereignty in and over his State, or , save as provided by or under the Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights then enjoyed by him as ruler of the State, or the validity of any law then in force in the Sate. The Schedule attached to the Instrument refers to four topics, defence, external affairs, communications and ancillary, and under these topics twenty matters have been serially enumerated as those in respect of which the Dominion Legislature had the power to make laws for the State. Thus, by the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja took the very important step of recognising the fact that his State was a part of the Dominion of India.”

“(12) Meanwhile, the invasion of the State had created tremendous popular fervour and patriotic feelings in resisting the act of aggression and this popular feeling inevitably tended to exercise pressure on the Maharaja for introducing responsible and popular government in the State. The Maharaja tried to pacify the popular demand by issuing proclamation on 05-3-1948. By this proclamation he stated that in accordance with the traditions of his dynasty he had from time to time provided for increasing association of his people with the administration of the State with the object of realising the goal of full responsible government at as early a date as possible, and he added that he had noted with gratification and pride the progress made so far and the legitimate desire of his people for the immediate establishment of a fully democratic constitution based on adult franchise with hereditary Ruler from his dynasty as the constitutional head of an executive responsible to the Legislature. It appears that before this proclamation was issued the Maharaja had already appointed Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah who was then the popular leader of the people as the head of the emergency administration. By the proclamation the Maharaja replaced the emergency administration by a popular interim government and provided for its powers, duties and functions pending the formation of a fully democratic constitution. Clause 1 of the proclamation provides for the composition of the Ministry, whereas by cl. 2 the Prime Minister and other ministers are required to function as cabinet and act on the principle of joint responsibility. A Dewan appointed by the Maharaja is to be a member of the Cabinet. Clause 4 provides that the Council of Ministers shall take appropriate steps, as soon as restoration of normal conditions has been completed, to convene a National Assembly based on adult franchise having due regard to the principle that the number of representatives from each voting area should, as far as practicable, be proportionate to the population of that area. Clause 5 then lays down that the Constitution to be framed by the national Assembly shall provide adequate safeguards for the minorities and contain appropriate provisions guaranteeing freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Clause 6 states that when the work of framing the Constitution is completed by the National Assembly the Constitution would be submitted through the Council of Ministers to the Maharaja for his acceptance. The proclamation ended with the expression of hope that the formation of a popular interim government and the inauguration in the near future of a fully democratic Constitution would ensure the contentment, happiness and the moral and material advancement of the people of the State. Though under this proclamation a popular interim government was set up, the constitutional position still was that the popular government had theoretically to function under the Constitution of 1939. It appears that before the popular government was thus installed in office the Maharaja had deputed four representatives of the State to represent the State in the Constituent Assembly called in the Dominion of India to frame the Constitution of India.”

“(13) After the popular interim government began to function the political events in the State gathered momentum and the public began to clamour for the framing of a democratic Constitution at an early date. When the atmosphere in the State was thus surcharged the Maharaja issued his final proclamation on 20-6-1949,by which he entrusted to Yuvaraj Karan Singh Bahadur all his powers and functions in regard to the government of the State because he had decided for reasons of health to leave the State for a temporary period. “Now therefore I hereby direct and declare”, says the proclamation, “all powers and functions whether legislative, executive or judicial which are exercisable by me in relation to the State and its government including in particular my right and prerogative of making laws, of issuing proclamations, orders and ordinances, or remitting, commuting or reducing sentences and of pardoning offenders, during the period of my absence from the State, be exercisable by Yuvaraj Karan Singh Bahadur.” As subsequent events show this was the last official act of the Maharaja before he left the State.”

“(14) After Yuvaraj Karan Singh took the Maharaja’s place and began to function under the powers assigned to him by the said proclamation, the interim popular government installed earlier was functioning as before. On November, 25, 1949, Yuvaraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation by which he declared and directed that the Constitution of India shortly to be adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India shall, in so far as it is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, govern the constitutional relationship between the State and the contemplated Union of India and shall be enforced in the State by him, his heirs and successors in accordance with the tenor of its provisions. He also declared that the provisions of the said Constitution shall, as from the date of its commencement, supersede and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith which were then in force in the State. The preamble to this proclamation shows that it was based on the conviction that the best interests of the State required that the constitutional relationship established between the State and the Dominion of India should be continued as between the State and the contemplated Union of India; and it refers to the fact that the Constituent Assembly of India which had framed the Constitution of India included the duly appointed representatives of the State and that the said Constitution provided a suitable basis to continue the constitutional relationship between the State ad the contemplated Union of India. On January 26, 1950, the Constitution of India came into force.”

“(15) This proclamation was followed by the Constitution (application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950 (C. O. 10) which was issued on January 26, 1950, by the President in consultation with the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and in exercise of the Powers conferred by Cl. (1) of Art. 370 of the Constitution. It came into force at once. Clause 2 of this order provides that for the purposes of sub-cl. (i) of Art. 370 of the Constitution, the matters specified in the First Schedule to the Order correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Dominion of India as the matter with regard to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and accordingly the power of Parliament to make laws for that State shall be limited to the matters specified in the said first Schedule. Clause (3) provides that, in addition to the provisions of Art. 1 and Art. 370 of the Constitution the only other provisions of the Constitution which shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be those specified in the Second Schedule to the Order and shall so apply subject to the exceptions and modifications specified in the said Schedule. The First Schedule to the Order specified 96 items occurring in the Union List; while the Second Schedule set out the articles of the Constitution made applicable to the State together with the exceptions and modifications. Later on we will have occasion to refer to some of these articles on which the appellant has relied.”

32. Further, paragraphs 4 to 6 & 12 of the judgement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled Sampat Prakash versus State of J&K, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1118, are taken note of :

“4. Article 370 of the Constitution is as follows:-

“370. (1) notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-

(a) The provisions of Art. 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir; (b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to- (i) 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 as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and (ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify. Explanation. For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948; (c) the provisions of article (1) and of this article shall apply in relation to that State; (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may be order specify: Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State;

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1 ) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be .operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

The first argument was that this article contained temporary provisions which ceased to be effective after the Constituent Assembly convened for the purpose of framing the Constitution the Jammu & Kashmir State had completed its task by framing the Constitution for that State. Reliance was placed on the historical background in which this Art.370 was included in the Constitution to urge that the powers under this article were intended to be conferred only for the limited period until the Constitution of the State was framed, and the President could not resort to them after the Constituent Assembly had completed its work framing the Constitution of the State. The back ground or the legislative history, which reference was made was brought to our notice by learned counsel by drawing our was brought to our notice by e attention to the speech of the Minister ,Sri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar when he moved in the Constituent Assembly clause 306A of the Bill, which now corresponds ‘with Article 370 of the Constitution. It was stated by him that conditions in Kashmir were special and required special treatment. The special circumstances, to which reference was made by him were :–

(1) that there had been a war going on within the limits of Jammu & Kashmir State; (2) that there was a cease-fire agreed to at the beginning of the year and that cease-fire was still on; (3) that the conditions in the State were still unusual and abnormal and had not settled down; (4) that part of the State was still in the hands of rebels and enemies; (5) that our country was entangled with the United Nations in regard to Jammu & Kashmir and it was not possible to say when we would be free from this entanglement; (6) that the Government of India had committed themselves to the people of Kashmir in certain respects which commitments included an undertaking that an opportunity be given to the people of the State to decide for themselves whether they would remain with the Republic or wish to go out of it; and (7) that the will of the people expressed through the Instrument of a Constituent Assembly would determine the Constitution of the State as well as the sphere of Union Jurisdiction over the State. Learned counsel urged that, in this background, Art. 370 of the Constitution could only have been intended to remain effective until the Constitution of the State was framed and the will of the people of Jammu & Kashmir had been expressed and, thereafter, this article must be held to have become ineffective, so that the modifications made by the President in exercise of the powers under this article, subsequent to the enforcement of the Constitution of the State, would be without any authority of law. The Constitution of the State came into force on 26th January, 1956 and, therefore, the two Orders of 1959 and 1964 passed by the President in purported exercise of the power under Art 370 were void. It was also urged that the provisions of clause (2) of Art. 370 support this view, because it directs that, if the concurrence of the Government of the State is given under para (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or under the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause before the Constituent Assembly for ,the purpose of flaming the Constitution of the State is convened, that concurrence has to be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. From this, it was sought to be inferred that the power of the President, depending on the concurrence of the Government of the State, must be exercised before the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the State, so that the concurrence could be placed for its decision, and that. Power must be held to cease to exist after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly when that course became impossible.”

“5. We are not impressed by either of these two arguments advanced by Mr. Ramamurthy. So far as the historical background is concerned, the Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the Government also relied on it to urge that the provisions of Art. 370 should be held to be continuing in force, because the situation that existed when this article was incorporated in the Constitution had not materially altered, and the purpose of introducing this article was to empower the President to exercise his discretion in applying the Indian Constitution while that situation remained unchanged. There is considerable force in this submission. The legislative history of this article cannot, in these circumstances, be of any assistance for holding that this article became ineffective after the Constituent Assembly of the State had framed the Constitution for the State.”

(emphasis supplied)

“6. The second submission based on clause (2) of Art. 370 does not find support even from the language of that clause which only refers to the concurrence given by the Government of the State before the Constituent Assembly was convened, and makes no mention at all of the completion of the work of .the Constituent Assembly or its dissolution.”

“12. The legislative history of this article will also fully support this view. It was because of the special situation existing in Jammu & Kashmir that the Constituent Assembly framing the Constitution decided that the Constitution should not become applicable to Jammu & Kashmir under Art. 394 under which it came into effect in the rest of India, and preferred to confer on the President the power to apply the various provisions of the Constitution with exceptions and modifications. It was envisaged that the President would have to take into account the situation existing in the State when applying a provision of the Constitution and such situations could arise from time to time. There was clearly the possibility that, when applying a particular provision, the situation might demand an exception or modification of the provision applied; but subsequent changes in the situation might justify the rescinding of those modifications or exceptions. This could only be brought about by conferring on the President the power of making orders from time to time under Art/ 370 and this power must, therefore, be held to have been conferred on him by applying the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act for the interpretation of the Constitution.”

(emphasis supplied)

33. The issue whether expression ‘banking’ in Entry 45 List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, would include providing of mechanism by which the moneys, due to the banks/financial Institutions, can be recovered, has been settled by the apex Court in case titled Union of India and another – Appellants v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others – respondents, reported in 2002 (4) SCC 275 and case titled Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Orsreported in [2009]4 SCC 94.

Paragraph 14 of the judgement titled Union of India and another – Appellants v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others – respondents, reported in 2002 (4) SCC 275 is taken note of :

“14.The Delhi High Court and the Guwahati High Court have held that the source of the power of Parliament to enact a law relating to the establishment for the Debts Recovery Tribunal is Entry 11-A of List III which pertains to “administration of justice; constitution and organization of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts”. In our opinion, Entry 45 of List I would cover the types of legislation now enacted. Entry 45 of List I relates to “banking”. Banking operations would, inter alia, include accepting of loans and deposits, granting of loans and recovery of the debts due to the bank. There can be little doubt that under Entry 45 of List I, it is Parliament alone which can enact a law with regard to the conduct of business by the banks. Recovery of dues is an essential function of any banking institution. In exercise of its legislative power relating to banking, Parliament can provide the mechanism by which monies due to the banks and financial institutions can be recovered. The Tribunals have been set up in regard to the debts due to the banks. The special machinery of a tribunal which has been constituted as per the preamble of the Act, “for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial intuitions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto” would squarely fall within the ambit of Entry 45 of List I. As none of the items in the lists are to be read in a narrow or restricted sense, the terms “banking” in Entry 45 would mean legislation regarding all aspects of banking including ancillary or subsidiary matter relating to banking. Setting up of an adjudicatory body like the Banking Tribunal relating to transactions in which banks and financial intuitions are concerned would clearly fall under Entry 45 of List I giving Parliament specific power to legislate in relation thereto.”

(emphasis supplied)

(2009) 4 SCC page 94 para 36 is taken note of:-

“36. Undisputedly, the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act have been enacted by Parliament under Entry 45 in List I in the Seventh Schedule whereas the Bombay and Kerala Acts have been enacted by the State Legislature concerned under entry 54 in List II in the Seventh Schedule. To put it differently, two sets of legislations have been enacted with reference to entries in different lists in the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, Article 254 cannot be invoked per se for striking down State legislations on the ground that the same are in conflict with the Central legislations. That apart, as will be seen hereafter, there is no ostensible overlapping between two sets of legislations. Therefore, even if the observations contained in Kesoram Industries case are treated as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution, the State legislations cannot be struck down on the ground that the same are in conflict with Central legislations.”

(emphasis supplied by us)

34. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in case titled Central Bank of India – Appellant v. State of Kerala and others – respondents, reported in [2009] 4 SCC 94, at paragraph 36, has most specifically held that the Act of 2002 has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 45 List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India.

35. Mr. P.N.Raina, learned Senior Advocate, while referring to case titled Rustum Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, reported in 1970(1) SCC 248, submitted that this judgement of the Hon’ble bench of eleven Judges has not been brought to the notice of the apex Court in Union of India and another – Appellants v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others –respondents case reported in 2002(4) SCC 275 and (2009) 4 SCC 94. While referring to Cooper’s case supra, contention of learned counsel was that the expression ‘banking’ would not include providing of mechanism for recovery of moneys due to the banks from the borrowers. Learned counsel, as already stated, read the judgement at great length to canvass his point.

36. The issue involved in Cooper’s case was not whether the entry ‘banking’ would include setting up and providing of mechanism for recovery of moneys due to the banks from the borrowers. In the said case, the declaration was sought that the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969, promulgated on 19th July, 1969 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act , of 1969, impair the rights of the owners of Banks guaranteed under articles 14, 19 & 31 of the Constitution and on that count are invalid. The apex court, by its majority decision, declared that the aforesaid Act is valid, and the Act was held to be within the legislative competence of the Parliament. However, it was declared that the Act made hostile discrimination against the named banks, in that, it prohibited the named banks from carrying on banking business, whereas other banks – Indian & foreign, were permitted to carry on banking business and even new banks could be opened, which may engage in banking business. It was further held that the impugned Act, in reality, restricted the named banks, whose undertakings were taken over under the said Act from carrying on business other than banking, as defined in section 5(B) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 and it was further declared that the Act violated the right for payment of compensation guaranteed under article 31.

37. The question, which is subject matter of these petitions, viz. the mechanism provided for recovery of the moneys due from the borrowers in terms of the Act of 2002 was not the issue involved in Cooper’s case. Whole hog reliance placed by Mr. P.N.Raina, on Cooper’s judgement, is of no consequence for determination of the issue involved in these writ petitions.

38. Entry 45 ‘banking’ of List – I, (Union List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India as also the expression ‘banking’ as defined in Banking Regulation Act 1949, would not mean that a bank, in the course of its banking business, though has the power to advance loans but has no power to recover the same. No sensible Government, Corporation or a private Company or an individual will indulge in ‘banking’ if it is to be held that a banker, in the course of his banking, can only advance the money and cannot recover the same. The banking business cannot even take off if such a view is taken. Even otherwise, it does not stand to reason that in banking business, when money is advanced by a banker, it would not include his right to recover the same. Right to recover the money advanced and the money due to the banks/financial Institutions, is inherent in banking business.

39. Recovery of moneys due to the banks can be effected on the basis of agreement arrived at between the lender and borrower and recovery can be effected through remedies available in common law. In common law, the ordinary mode of seeking recovery of money by the banks is by institution of Suits in the Courts established by the State. The mechanism can also be prescribed for recovery of moneys due to the banks by enacting laws. The validity of the Act of 1993, which is not applicable to the State of J&K, has been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Delhi High Court Bar Association’s case. Similarly the apex Court has upheld the validity of the Act of 2002 in Mridula’s case reported in AIR 2004 SC 2371 – (2004) 4 SCC 311. In the said case, challenge was thrown to the Act of 2002 on the ground that same is arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

40. In view of observations of the apex Court in Central Bank of India – Appellant versus State of Kerala and others – respondents and Union of India versus Delhi High Court Bar Association cases, these writ petitions would require to be dismissed, but regard being had to the special constitutional and legal position occupied by the State of J&K in the community of States of Union of India and in view of the constitutional and legal issues raised by learned counsel about the same, the applicability of some of the provisions of the Act of 2002, more particularly, section 13(1) and (4) thereof, has come under cloud. The issues raised at bar would require to be considered from this stand point now.

41. Hon’ble the Supreme court in Prem Nath Koul’s case, from paragraph 6 onwards, has dealt, in some detail, with the events and constitutional changes, which took place in Kashmir from 1925 onwards, which are briefly summarized as under :

(A) In 1925, Maharaja Hari Singh succeeded Maharaja Pratap Singh as ruler of Kashmir ;

(Ai) In the year 1934, in pursuance to peoples’ demand for establishment of responsible Government, Maharaja Hari Singh issued Regulation No.1 of 1991(1934). Aii) The preamble of the Regulation expressed the intention of Maharaja to provide for association of his subjects in the matter of legislation and administration of the State and in pursuance to the said intention, the Regulation were promulgated.

(Aiii) The Regulation consisted of 46 sections which dealt with legislative, executive and Judicial powers of Maharaja himself. It also referred to the subjects which were reserved from the operation of Regulation.

(Aiv) Maharaja made provision for constitution of legislature of the State.

(Av) Conferred authority on council to make rules for specific purposes and referred to other relevant and material topics.

(Avi) Section 3 provided that all powers viz. legislative,

Executive and judicial in relation to the State and its Government, are declared to be and to have been always, inherent in and possessed of and retained by– the Maharaja of J&K and nothing contained in the Regulation shall affect or be deemed to have affected his right and prerogative to make and pass Regulations, Proclamations and Ordinances by virtue of his inherent powers.

Avii) Section 30 laid down that no measure shall be deemed to have been passed by the Praja Sabha until and unless the Maharaja signified his assent thereto.

(Aviii) The Regulation left it to the absolute discretion of Maharaja whether to assent to such a measure or not .

(para 6 of Prem Nath Koul’s judgement).

(B) Five years later, Maharaja promulgated the J&K Constitution Act 14 of 1996 (1939).

(Bi) The preamble of the Constitution referred to a Proclamation issued on 11th June, 1939, in which the Maharaja’s decision was expressed to further take steps to enable his subjects to make orderly progress in the direction of attaining the role of active cooperation between the executive and legislature of the State in ensuring maximum happiness of the people.

(Bii) In accordance with the aforesaid desire, the text of the Constitution, contained in Regulation (I) of 1991 was thoroughly overhauled and effort was made to bring the amended Constitution in tune with the similar Constitutions of its type.

(Biii) The Constitution is divided into 06 parts and includes 78 sections.

(Biv) Section 5 of the Act, like section 3 of the earlier Regulation, recognized and preserved all inherent powers of Maharaja, whereas section 4 provided that the State was to be governed by and in the name of His Highness, and all rights, authority and Jurisdiction which appertain to the Government of the State, are exercisable by His Highness, in so far as, may be otherwise provided by or under the Act or as may be otherwise directed by His Highness.

(Bv) The other provisions of the Act were all subject to over riding powers of His Highness specifically preserved by section 5.

(Bvi ) The constitutional powers of the Maharaja under the Act of 1939 were, in substance, exactly same as those under the earlier Act. (para 7 of Prem Nath Koul’s judgement).

(C ) The Indian Independence Act 1947 (for short Act of 1947) was enacted and during this time, the State of J&K was being governed by Maharaja, and the second Constitution, as amended from time to time, was in operation.

(Ci ) Under section 7(1)(b) of the Act of 1947, the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapsed and with it lapsed all the treaties and agreements in force at the date of passing of the Act of 1947 between His Majesty and the rulers of the Indian States.

(Cii ) All obligations of His Majesty existing at that time towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, agreement, usage, sufferance or otherwise also lapsed.

(Ciii) The proviso to said section, however, prescribed that notwithstanding anything in para (b),effect shall, as nearly as may be, continue to be given to provisions in such agreements as therein referred to in relation to the subjects enumerated in the proviso or other like matters until the provisions in question are denounced by the ruler of Indian State on the one hand, or are superseded by his subsequent agreements on the other hand.

(Civ) With the lapse of British paramountcy , the State of J&K was free from limitations imposed by the said paramountcy subject to provisions of the proviso aforesaid.

(para 8 of Prem Nath Koul’s judgement).

(D ) The tribal leaders invaded the State on 22nd October, 1947. The Maharaja on 29th October, 1947 signed Instrument of Accession with India, which had then become an independent dominion.

(Di ) By the first clause of the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja declared that he had acceded to the dominion of India with the intent that Governor General of India, the dominion, legislature, the federal Court and any other dominion authority established for the purpose of dominion shall, by virtue of Instrument of Accession, subject always to the terms thereof and for the purpose only of the dominion,exercise, in relation to the State of J&K, such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act1935 as in force in the dominion of India on 15th August, 1947.

(para 9 & 10 of Prem Nath Koul’s judgement).

(E) By clause (3) of the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja agreed with the maters specified in the schedule attached to the Instrument of Accession, where the matters with respect to which the dominion legislature may make laws for the State.

(Ei ) Clause (5) provided that the Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment to Government of India Act, 1935or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment was accepted by Maharaja by an Instrument supplementary to the original Instrument of Accession.

(Eii) By clause (7), it was agreed that Maharaja shall not be deemed to be committed to the acceptance to any future Constitution of India nor would his discretion be fettered to enter into agreements with Government of India under any such future Constitution.

(Eiii ) Clause (8) provided that nothing in the Instrument affects the continuance of the

Maharaja’s sovereignty under and over his State, save as provided by or under the Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights then enjoyed by him as ruler of the State, or the validity of any law then in force in the State.

(Eiv ) The Schedule attached to the Instrument referred to four topics, Defence, External Affairs, Communication and ancillary and under these topics, 20 matters were serially enumerated as those in respect of which the dominion legislature had power to make laws in the State. Thus, by the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja took the very important step of recognizing the fact that his State was part of the dominion of India.

(para11 of Prem Nath Koul’s judgement).

(F) On 05th March, 1948, Maharaja replaced the emergency administration by interim Government and provided for its powers, duties and functions pending the formation of a fully democratic Constitution.

(Fi ) Clause (4) of the Proclamation provided that the council of Ministers shall take appropriate steps, as soon as restoration of normal conditions are completed to convene a National Assembly based on adult franchise.

(Fii) Clause (5) laid down that the Constitution to be framed by the National Assembly shall provide adequate safeguards for the minorities and contain appropriate provisions guaranteeing freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

(Fiii ) Clause (6) provided that after completion of framing of the Constitution by the National Assembly, the same should be submitted through Council of Ministers to Maharaja for his acceptance.

(para 12 of Prem Nath Koul’s case)

(G) On 26th June, 1943, Maharaja issued a Proclamation by which he entrusted to Yuvraj Karan Singh Bahadur all his powers and functions in regard to Government of the State.

(Gi ) On 25th November, 1949, the Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation by which he declared and directed that the Constitution of India, shortly to be adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India, shall, in so far as, it is applicable to the State of J&K, govern the constitutional relationship between the State and contemplated Union of India and shall be enforced for the State by him, his heirs and successors in accordance with the terms of its provisions.

(Gii) He also declared that the provisions of the said Constitution, shall, as from the date of its commencement, substitute and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith which were then in force in the State.

(para 14 of Prem Nath Koul’s case)

(H) The Proclamation aforestated was followed by the Constitution (application to J&K) order, 1950 (C-o-10), which was issued on January 26, 1950 by the President in consultation with J&K and for exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of article 370 of the Constitution of India.

(para 15 of Prem Nath Koul’s case)

(I) The Yuvraj Karan Singh, on 20th April, 1951 issued a Proclamation whereunder he directed that the Constituent Assembly, comprising all representations of the people elected on the basis of adult franchise, shall be constituted forthwith for purposes of framing a Constitution for the State of J&K. The Proclamation set out the manner in which the members of the Constituent Assembly would be elected and also made provisions for holding of said elections.

(Ii ) The Yuvraj Karan Singh also felt that the Proclamation issued by the Maharaja on 05th March, 1948, with regard to convening the National Assembly, no longer met the requirements of the situation of the State.

Iii) By the Constitution, thus framed, the hereditary rule of the State was abolished and a provision was made for election of Sadar-i-Riasat to be the head of the State.

(Iiii) On 15th November, 1952, the Constitution (application to J&K) IInd amendment order 1952 (C-0-43) was issued which came into force on 17th November, 1952.

(paras 20 & 21 of Prem Nath Koul’s case)

(J) Hon’ble the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the execution of Instrument of Accession affected, in any manner, the legislative, Executive and judicial powers in regard to the Government of Sate which then vested in the ruler of the State.

(Ji) At paragraph 27 of Prem Nath Koul’s case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has made it clear that until the Maharaja issued his proclamation on 29th June, 1949, all his powers, legislative, executive and judicial as well as his right and prerogative vested in him as before.

(Jii) At paragraph 30 of Prem Nath Koul’s case, it has been made clear by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that proclamation of 26th November, 1949, did not affect Yuvraj Karan Singh’s authority and power as ruler of the State which had been conferred on him by proclamation of his father issued in that behalf. “

42. Reference to Prem Nath Koul’s and Sampat Prakash’s decision has been made to show that the State of J&K has, legally and validly, framed its Constitution, which is not the position in respect of other States of the country. The provisions of Constitution of India which pertain to the States have also not been made applicable to the State of J&K. List – II, (State List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India has also not been made applicable to the State of J&K.

43. The laws made by Maharaja to define the State subjects and the laws made by him in respect of prohibition on alienation of immoveable property in favour of non State subjects have been protected by the constitutional laws viz. Section 76 of Act of 1939 AD and other statutory laws including that of section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The State of J&K is not only unique in view of having its own Constitution but has other special features, one of which has been referred to hereinabove.

44. The power of Parliament to legislate laws for which field is prescribed by List – I, of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and List – III (Concurrent List) thereof, pertain to not all the Entries made in these lists but only to those Entries, which have been applied to State of J&K by employing the constitutional procedure prescribed in article 370 of the Constitution of India. The Union Parliament is lacking the legislative competence to enact laws in respect of ‘administration of justice and constitution of Courts’, which Entry has been shifted to List III (Concurrent List) by constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act 1976 carried in the Constitution in the year 1976, which amendment has not been made applicable to the State of J&K.

45. Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002, authorizes the secured creditor, which, in the cases on hand, are the banks, who being juristic persons, are not State Subjects, to take possession of secured assets, which would include immoveable properties of the borrowers and have been further armed with the power to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the money due to them.

46. The Parliament has no legislative competence to make laws in respect of J&K, which would affect the interests of the State subjects/citizens of the State as defined by law and section 6 of the Constitution of J&K qua their immoveable properties. It is the State in terms of the section 5 of the Constitution of J&K, which has the absolute sovereign power to legislate laws touching the rights of its State subjects/citizens qua their immoveable properties. The State legislature, in terms of section 140 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has authorized for mortgage of property in favour of the Institutions mentioned therein. In respect of schedule first, only simple mortgage has been authorized to be executed in their favour. The sale of immoveable property in pursuance to a Civil Court Decree obtained by the bank/financial Institution in respect of the mortgaged property cannot be made in favour of the non State subjects. Since the field of legislation as prescribed in List I, Entries of some of which have been extended to the State of J&K, do not authorize the Union Parliament to legislate law, as already stated, which affects the interests of the State subjects/citizens of J&K qua their immoveable property, the competence of the Parliament to legislate section 13 (1) and (4) is held to be beyond its legislative competence to the extent of State of J&K. Similarly sub section (1) of section 13 of the Act of 2002, which prescribes that “notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 & 69-A of Transfer of Property Act”, would not be applicable to the State of J&K, inter alia, the Union Parliament has no legislative competence to enact law relating to transfer of property in the State of J&K and secondly reference is made to provisions of Transfer of Property Act, which are applicable to the entire country excepting the State of J&K, which has its own law called Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Furthermore, section 13 cannot be made applicable in its entirety in view of its non obstinate clause to the State of J&K. Similarly section 17(A) of the Act of 2002, is beyond the legislative competence of the Union Parliament as even extending the jurisdiction of the existing Court in the State of J&K is covered by Entry ‘administration of justice’ and Union Parliament lacks legislative power to enact such provision in respect of State of Jammu and Kashmir. Same reasoning applies to section 18(B) as well. On the same analogy, Union Parliament lacks legislative competence to enact provisions like section 34, 35 and 36 of the Act of 2002. Section 13(1) and section 13(4), being the kernel of the Act of 2002, further, as already stated, the Union Parliament having no legislative competence to enact laws, vide 17(A), 18(B), 34, 35, 36, the Act of 2002 cannot be implemented in the State of J&K.

47. In Prem Nath Koul’s case, it has been authoritatively ruled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that signing of Instrument of Accession did not affect the sovereignty of Maharaja over his State. After the Instrument of Accession was signed by Maharaja, his successor in interest issued proclamation for electing Constituent Assembly for framing of Constitution of J&K. The Constituent Assembly was elected on the basis of adult franchise and the said Constituent Assembly framed Constitution, which is called Constitution of J&K. The Constituent Assembly, adopted and gave to the people of the State of J&K the Constitution on 17th day of November, 1956. Sections 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 & 158 came into force at once and the other provisions of Constitution of J&K came into force on 26th day of Jan 1957. The Yuvraj, who issued proclamation for convening of Constitutional Assembly and who possessed sovereign power, thus, by getting the Constituent Assembly elected through adult franchise, transferred sovereignty of the State to the people of the State. Even otherwise, the people are repository of sovereign power of the State. The State of J&K, thus, got its own Constitution for regulating its affairs.

48. The Constitution of India, in the above legal situation, could not apply, by its own force, to the State of J&K. Article 370 of the Constitution of India, provided mechanism and procedure for applying constitutional provisions and statutes to the State of J&K. The dominion Government, however, could not extend provisions of the Constitution or other laws to the State of J&K unilaterally. Same could be done either with consultation with the Government of J&K or with its concurrence. The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja , even after signing of Instrument of Accession and in view of framing of its own Constitution, thus, legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered. The sovereign character of the State Constitution and State Assembly, which, like other wings of the State, is creature of State Constitution, has, thus, sovereign power to make laws for its subjects. The Parliament has been authorized to make laws in respect of those matters in the Union List and 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 State to the dominion of India. The other laws in the said State could be made by the Parliament with concurrence of the Government of the State, which are to be specified by the President by an order.

49. Entry 45 of List (I) of Schedule 7th of Constitution of India has been extended to the State of J&K in accordance with the mechanism and procedure prescribed by article 370. The Parliament has, thus, power to legislate laws in respect of banking. The Parliament, however, has no power to legislate law about the subject “administration of justice, the land & the other immoveable properties”. In terms of section 5 of the Constitution of J&K, the State Legislature has power to enact laws, besides others, on the aforesaid subjects as well. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in cases reported in AIR 1951 SC 69 and AIR 1995 SC 21, the Entry “administration of justice” would include creation of Courts conferring jurisdiction on them as also enlarging and diminishing of jurisdiction of the Courts. The Parliament could not, of its own, thus, make law like section 17(A) and 18(B) of the Act of 2002 as same has conferred jurisdiction on the Courts in the State of J&K, which is, exclusively, the power of State Legislature, in as much as the Entry 11-A of List (III) (Concurrent List) has not been extended to the State of J&K. Similarly, the law regarding transfer of immoveable property, the Limitation Act and provision of the Act of 2002, which has the effect to supersede State laws, does not fall within the competence of the Parliament to the extent of State of Jammu and Kashmir. The provisions of the Act of 2002, more particularly, those, reference whereof has been made in this judgement, could not be legislated by the Parliament in respect of State of Jammu and Kashmir.

50. The laws made by the Maharaja are protected by the Constitution of 1939 AD and the subsequent Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly of the State of J&K, which includes protection given to the State subjects and non transferring of immoveable properties to non State subjects. The Act of 2002, which, in view of discussion made in this judgement, affects these laws and rights of the State subjects, thus cannot be extended to the State of J&K.

51. The Constitution of J&K, as already stated, is sovereign in character and the State Assembly, exercises sovereign power to legislate laws.

52. In the community of States of India, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Koul and Sampat Prakash’s cases, the State of J&K occupies a distinct, unique and special position. Thus, in law, the State of J&K constitutes a class in itself and cannot be compared to the other states of the country. The constitutional provisions and laws, which have been extended to the State of J&K in accordance with the mechanism and procedure prescribed by article 370 and which constitutional provisions and laws have been made applicable to the State of J&K with modifications etc., make the distinct, unique & special position of the State of J&K more clear. The Constitutional provisions and laws, which have been extended to the State of J&K, are applied to a class of people, who are State subjects of the State of J&K. These laws have not been made applicable, in the same form, to the people of rest of the States of the country. Article 35(A), as has been applied to the State of J&K, not only recognizes but clarifies the aforestated constitutional and legal position. This article, on its own, does not give anything new to the State of J&K.

53. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as has been made applicable to the State of J&K, thus, gave equal protection of laws to the State subjects/citizens as a class apart. Similarly, article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, which has been made applicable to the State of J&K and till date continues to be in force in the State, recognizes the right to own, hold and dispose of property, which right otherwise is inherent in the State subjects/citizens of the State of J&K, who stand defined in terms of Elans/Orders of His Highness and the Constitution of J&K.

54. Similarly the expression “life” appearing in article 21, has wide connotation. Human life has many essential components and attributes. The basic instinct is survival of human beings. Human life is created with a definite purpose. It comprises of many characteristics, viz. spiritual, physical and material. The physical existence and material support is necessary for attaining spiritual excellence. Human being acquires properties both moveable and immoveable. These material things comprise an essential component of human being/life. A person can be deprived of his physical and material components by procedure established by law. Laws have their own universe. They operate in matter and not in vacuum. The laws are located in time and space. In the State of J&K, the immoveable property of a State subject/citizen, cannot be permitted to be transferred to a non State subject. This legal and constitutional protection is inherent in the State subjects of the State of J&K and this fundamental and basic inherent right cannot be taken away in view of peculiar and special constitutional position occupied by State of Jammu and Kashmir. No law can be made to abridge or affect this basic right of citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. The Act of 2002 does adversely impact the inherent, natural and constitutional rights of the State subjects. Even otherwise, as already stated, the Parliament lacks the power to enact such a law in view of express constitutional provisions in respect of Jammu and Kashmir.

55. Article 35(A) of the Constitution of India, which has been applied to the State of J&K, as already stated, clarifies the already existing constitutional and legal position and does not extend something new to state of J&K. Article 35-A is clarificatory provision to clear the issue of constitutional position obtaining in rest of country in contrast to State of J&K. This provision clears the constitutional relationship between people of rest of country with people of J&K. It is in essence an information to the citizens of rest of country that on constitutional and legal plank they in all respects do not constitute a class with citizens of state of Jammu and Kashmir. The citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir, as already stated, have their own constitution, and their sovereign character which cannot be challenged, altered or abridged. The power of Parliament to make laws in respect of State of Jammu and Kashmir is circumscribed and it can make laws for it only where permitted by State and not otherside, and that too in accordance with mechanism prescribed by Article 370 of Constitution of India.

56. Article 152 and article 368 of the Constitution of India, while referring to State, provides that it does not include the State of J&K.

57. Amendment to Rules of 2002, which provide that a non State subject cannot purchase the immoveable property in consequence to sale made in terms of section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 is rendered inconsequential and otiose in view of reasons recorded in this judgement. Section 13(4) empowers the non State subject to take possession of immoveable property which is not countenanced by State Constitution and State Laws. Furthermore, in view of the aforestated discussion, whereunder it has been held that section 17 (A) and 18(B) have been enacted without legislative competence, there being no redressal forum available against the action taken u/s 13 of the Act of 2002, it would not be applicable to the State of J&K. Section 34 takes away the jurisdiction of the civil Courts and section 35 has over riding effect on all other laws which include Transfer of Property Act of the State of J&K, more particularly, Section 140 thereof. Citizens of Jammu and Kashmir in view of their own constitution constitute a separate and distinct class in themselves. In view of the discussion made in this judgment parliament lack power to enact law of the above nature in respect of State of J&K. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 modifies the State transfer of property Act, State Civil Procedure Code, Civil Courts Act, State Limitation Act and above all the adversely impacts the inalienable property rights of State Subjects. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is made beyond legislative competence by Parliament to the extent of State of Jammu and Kashmir, thus cannot be extended to this State. Any law made by Parliament which affects the laws made by State legislature cannot be extended and applied to State of J&K. It also affects the rights of State subject/citizens recognized by the Constitution of India and Constitution of State of J&K. In view of aforesaid discussion, the other issues raised and referred to at para 19 need not to be dealt with.

58. For the above stated reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner :

“It is held that the Union Parliament does not have legislative competence to make laws contained in section 13, section 17(A), section 18(B) section 34, 35 and section 36, so far as they relate to the State of J&K ;

It is further held that in view of the aforesaid declaration, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be enforced in the State of J&K ;

It is further held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can be availed of by the banks, which originate from the State of J&K for securing the monies which are due to them and which have been advanced to the borrowers, who are not State subjects and residents of the State of J&K and who are non State subjects/non citizens of the State of J&K and residents of any other State of India excepting the State of J&K.

In consequence to the above said declaration, the notices issued by the respondent – banks in terms of section 13 or any other coercive method taken under section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, are quashed, and set aside. The respondents Banks/Institutions are restrained from proceeding further in terms of action initiated on the basis of provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the State Subjects/citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The respondent – banks are at liberty to recover the money due to them from the borrowers by having recourse to the appropriate laws and by approaching the appropriate forums.

The State of J&K would be at liberty to enact law similar to that of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for securing the interests of the banks/financial Institutions.

The State of J&K, in the event of framing such a law, has to ensure that interests of State subjects/citizens of J&K qua their immoveable properties are not affected by transferring the same to non State subjects.

Registry to place copy of this judgment on lead petitions of Srinagar and Jammu wings respectively and operative part of judgments be placed on all other petitions, details whereof are given in the cause lists annexed with this judgment. The record of writ petition be send to respective wings of the Court.

Full Text of Supreme Court Judgement on SARFAESI Act

Greater Kashmir

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12237-12238_OF 2016 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 30884-30885 OF 2015] STATE BANK OF INDIA ... APPELLANT VERSUS SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12240-12246_OF 2016 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30815 & 30817 OF 2015] [SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30817 OF 2015] STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ZAFFAR ULLAH NEHRU AND ANR.

ETC. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J. Leave granted. 1. The Constitution of India is a mosaic drawn from the experience of nations worldwide. The federal structure of this Constitution is largely reflected in Part XI which is largely drawn from the Government of India Act, 1935. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is a part of this federal structure. Due to historical reasons, it is a State which is accorded special treatment within the framework of the Constitution of India. This case is all about the State of Jammu & Kashmir vis*-a-vis* the Union of India, in so far as legislative relations between the two are concerned. 2. The present appeals arise out of a judgment dated 16.7.2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, in which it has been held that various key provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI") were outside the legislative competence of Parliament, as they would collide with Section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act of Jammu & Kashmir, 1920. The said Act has been held to be inapplicable to banks such as the State Bank of India which are all India banks. 3. Before going into the merits of the case, it is important to note that SARFAESI is an enactment which inter alia entitles banks to enforce their security interest outside the court's process by moving under Section 13 thereof to take possession of secured assets of the borrower and sell them outside the court process. Sections 13 (1) and (4) and 17 are key provisions of SARFAESI relevant for the present case and are set out herein as follows: "Section 13. Enforcement of security interest. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:-(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: PROVIDED that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: PROVIDED FURTHER that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt, (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. xxx Section 17. Right to appeal. (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken: PROVIDED that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section. (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management of the business to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to anyone or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditors as invalid and restore the possession of the secured assets to the borrower or restore the management of the business to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4)of section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section 13 to recover his secured debt. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: PROVIDED that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the rules made thereunder." 4. Section 34 declares that a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal under the Act is empowered to determine, and Section 35 is a general non-obstante clause declaring that this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. 5. The bone of contention in the present appeals is whether SARFAESI in its application to the State of Jammu & Kashmir would be held to be within the legislative competence of Parliament. To decide this question, we have heard wide ranging arguments from the learned Attorney General Shri Mukul Rohtagi and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of the Appellants. They have referred in detail to the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, 1956. It is their submission that the Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir, 1947 itself makes it clear that List I of the 7th Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935 would apply, and that the various Constitution Application to J & K Orders issued from time to time under Article 370 makes it clear that Article 246 (1) read with Entry 45 and 95 List I would clothe Parliament with power to enact SARFAESI. In fact, according to them, even the impugned judgment of the High Court concedes this. According to them, once Entry 45 List I has no other competing Entry, inasmuch as List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India has not been extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and Entry 11A dealing with Administration of Justice contained in List III of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India does not apply to Jammu & Kashmir, and Entry 6 List III dealing with transfer of property also does not apply, it is their case that Entry 45 List I is to be read in its full plenitude and is not cut down by the provisions of any other Entry. If it is found that the entire SARFAESI is in fact enacted under Entry 45 read with 95 of List I, it would be clear that no other enquiry is necessary, as the Act in pith and substance would be referable to these two entries. This being the case, the State's legislative power comes in only if none of the entries of List I or III are attracted. To refer to Entry 11A and to Entry 6, and further to state that Section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act of Jammu & Kashmir would render the key provisions of SARFAESI without legislative competence, is wholly incorrect. They referred to a number of judgments to show that recovery of loans is as much part of the business of banking as the giving of loans, and that therefore the entire 2002 Act would fall within Entry 45 read with Entry 95 List I. According to them, therefore, the impugned judgment is wrong on several fundamentals and needs to be set aside. They referred to and relied upon a number of other judgments which we will deal with in the course of this judgment. 6. Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the private respondent, has argued that since both the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir are expressions of the sovereign will of the people, they have equal status and none is subordinate to the other. His basic argument to meet the contentions of the appellants is that the SARFAESI Act, in pith and substance, relates to "transfer of property" and not "banking" and would, therefore, be outside the competence of Parliament and exclusively within the competence of the State Legislature. He further argued that the power of Parliament is expressly "limited" under Article 370(1 )(b) of the Constitution of India whereas under the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, the State Legislature has plenary powers over all matters, except those where the Parliament has power to make laws. He also argued that the subjects mentioned in the State List of the 7th Schedule under the Constitution of India were frozen and can never be delegated or conferred on Parliament so long as Article 370 remains and therefore any transference of a State List subject to the Concurrent List later cannot apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He also argued that it is not enough under Article 370 to confer power on Parliament by a Presidential Order, but that every time Parliament enacts a law under such power, before such law can operate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the State Government's concurrence must be obtained. This was stated to be also for the reason that an amendment made to the Constitution of India will not apply unless the State concurs in applying it to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, in which case only a Presidential Order applying such amendment would take effect. Further, according to him, Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act is in direct conflict with Section 13 of SARFAESI Act and the Transfer of Property Act must prevail. He further argued that Section 17A and 18B of the SARFAESI Act, being Sections relatable to administration of justice, which is purely a State subject, would also be ultra vires Parliament. He relied upon Article 35A and supported the impugned judgment on this score, and further stated that the various judgments cited on behalf of the appellants were distinguishable as the fact situation in the present case was completely different from the situation in those judgments. 7. Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir, referred to Article 370 and the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir in some detail and cited judgments of this Court dealing with the same. He also pointed out local statutory laws which prohibit transfer of land belonging to State residents to non State residents. His submission was that though the SARFAESI Act was enacted by Parliament by virtue of Entry 45 List I, yet Section 13(4) alone incidentally encroaches upon the property rights of permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and must be read down so that it will not be permissible under this Section to sell property belonging to a permanent resident of the State to a person who is not a permanent resident of the State. It was his further submission that the proviso added to Rule 8(5) of the SARFAESI Rules must be read along with Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and if so read, the State of Jammu & Kashmir would have no objection to the SARFAESI Act applying to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. 8. As Article 1 of the Constitution of India states, India is a Union of States. In an illuminating judgment, namely, State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1964 (1) SCR 371, Chief Justice Sinha, in the majority judgment, has held that India is quasi-federal with a strong tilt to the Centre. In so holding, the learned Judge referred to four indicia of a real federation, as follows:- "(a) A truly federal form of Government envisages a compact or agreement between independent and sovereign units to surrender partially their authority in their common interest and vesting it in a Union and retaining the residue of the authority in the constituent units. Ordinarily each constituent unit has its separate Constitution by which it is governed in all matters except those surrendered to the Union, and the Constitution of the Union primarily operates upon the administration of the units. Our Constitution was not the result of any such compact or agreement: Units constituting a unitary State which were non-sovereign were transformed by abdication of power into a Union. (b) Supremacy of the Constitution which cannot be altered except by the component units. Our Constitution is undoubtedly supreme but it is liable to be altered by the Union Parliament alone and the units have no power to alter it. (c) Distribution of powers between the Union and the regional units each in its sphere coordinate and independent of the other. The basis of such distribution of power is that in matters of national importance in which a uniform policy is desirable in the interest of the units, authority is entrusted to the Union, and matters of local concern remain with the State. (d) Supreme authority of the Courts to interpret the Constitution and to invalidate action violative of the Constitution. A federal Constitution, by its very nature, consists of checks and balances and must contain provisions for resolving conflicts between the executive and legislative authority of the Union and the regional units." [at pages 396 - 397] 9. It was found that so far as States other than the State of Jammu & Kashmir are concerned, indicia (a) and (b) were absent whereas indicia (c) and (d) were present, and this coupled with a reading of various other Articles of the Constitution led a Constitution Bench of this Court to decide that the federal structure of the Constitution tilts strongly towards the Central Legislature and Central Government. 10. Insofar as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned, it is clear that indicia (b) is absent. Insofar as the other indicia are concerned, the State does have its own separate Constitution by which it is governed in all matters, except those surrendered to the Union of India. Amendments that are made in the Constitution of India are made to apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir only if the President, with the concurrence of the State Government, applies such amendments to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The distribution of powers between the Union and the State of Jammu & Kashmir reflects that matters of national importance, in which a uniform policy is desirable, is retained with the Union of India, and matters of local concern remain with the State of Jammu & Kashmir. And, even though the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution sets up the District Courts and the High Court in the State, yet, the supreme authority of courts to interpret the Constitution of India and to invalidate action violative of the Constitution is found to be fully present. Appeals from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir lie to the Supreme Court of India, and shorn of a few minor modifications, Articles 124 to 147 all apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, with Articles 135 and 139 being omitted. The effect of omitting Articles 135 and 139 has a very small impact, in that Article 135 only deals with jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court to be exercised by the Supreme Court, and Article 139 deals with Parliament's power to confer on the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders, and writs for purposes other than those mentioned in Article 32 (2). We may also add that permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir are citizens of India, and that there is no dual citizenship as is contemplated by some other federal Constitutions in other parts of the world. All this leads us to conclude that even qua the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the quasi federal structure of the Constitution of India continues, but with the aforesaid differences. It is therefore difficult to accept the argument of Shri Hansaria that the Constitution of India and that of Jammu & Kashmir have equal status. Article 1 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution make it clear that India shall be a Union of States, and that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India. 11. It is interesting to note that the State of Jammu & Kashmir, though a state within the meaning of Article 1 of the Constitution of India, has been accorded a special status from the very beginning because of certain events that took place at the time that the erstwhile Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir acceded to the Indian Union. These events have been set out in detail in Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 270, to which we will refer in some detail. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is dealt with by a special provision, namely, Article 370. At this juncture, it is necessary to set out this Article which reads as follows:- Article 370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, (a) the provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir; (b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to (i) 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 as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and (ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify. Explanation - For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948 ; (c) the provisions of Article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State; (d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify: Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State: Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government. (2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. (3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification. 12. The first thing that is noticed in Article 370 is that the marginal note states that it is a temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. However, unlike Article 369, which is also a temporary provision limited in point of time to five years from the commencement of this Constitution, no such limit is to be found in Article 370. Despite the fact that it is, therefore, stated to be temporary in nature, sub-clause (3) of Article 370 makes it clear that this Article shall cease to be operative only from such date as the President may by public notification declare. And this cannot be done under the proviso to Article 370 (3) unless there is a recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State so to do. This takes us to an interesting judgment of this Court, namely, Sampat Prakash v. the State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1969) 2 SCR 365. In this case, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed challenging the detention of the petitioner, in which it was contended that Article 370 contained only temporary provisions which cease to be effective after the Constituent Assembly of the State had completed its work by framing a Constitution for the State. The detention of the petitioner was continued without making a reference to the Advisory Board inasmuch as Article 35(c) of the Constitution had given protection to any law relating to preventive detention in Jammu & Kashmir against invalidity on the ground of infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution initially for a period of five years, which was then extended to ten years and fifteen years. These extensions were the subject matter of challenge, and it was sought to be contended that the power of the President, depending on the concurrence of the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, must be exercised under Article 370 before dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the State, and that such power must be held to cease to exist after dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. This argument was repelled by the Constitution Bench by giving three reasons. First and foremost, it was stated that the reason for the Article was that it was necessary to empower the President of India to exercise his discretion from time to time in applying the Indian Constitution. This being so, Article 370 would necessarily have to be invoked every time the President, with the State's concurrence, feels it necessary that amendments to the Constitution of India be made applicable to Jammu & Kashmir, given the special proviso to Article 368 which applies only to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Further, it was also held that the Article will cease to operate under sub-clause (3) only when a recommendation is made by the Constituent Assembly of the State to that effect. It was found that in fact the Constituent Assembly of the State had made a recommendation that the Article should be operative with one modification to be incorporated in the explanation to clause (1) of the Article, namely, that the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir be substituted by the expression "Sadar-I Riyasat of Jammu & Kashmir". Also, it is important to note that Article 370 (2) does not in any manner state that the said Article shall cease on the completion of the work of the Constituent Assembly or its dissolution. Having regard to all these factors, this Court clearly held that though the marginal note refers to Article 370 as only a temporary provision, it is in fact in current usage and will continue to be in force until the specified event in sub-clause (3) of the said Article takes place. It was further held by the Sampat Prakash judgment that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was also applicable so that the power under this Article can be used from time to time to meet with varying circumstances. 13. Article 370 begins with a non obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, first and foremost, under sub-clause (1)(a) the provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Article 238 has since been repealed and is not of any importance today. It only referred to the application of the provisions of Part VI to States in Part B of the 1st Schedule. Since the scheme of Article 370 was different, the said Article was stated not to apply. But more importantly, the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited, in sub-clause (b)(i), to the matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India, which in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession. If other matters contained in the said Constitution outside the Instrument of Accession in the said Lists are to be extended, then they can be extended only with the concurrence of the State. The difference between consultation and concurrence was highlighted in Prem Nath Kaul's case, supra. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to this case in some detail as it goes into the legislative history of Article 370, and the Presidential Orders made under the said Article. We are not directly concerned here with the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates (Abolition) Act, 1950, whose validity was challenged in the said judgment. The judgment goes into great detail as to how the Instrument of Accession to the Union of India was made by Maharaja Hari Singh. What is of importance is to note that after the reins of power were handed over to his son Yuvraj Karan Singh by a proclamation dated 20.6.1949, Yuvraj Karan Singh, by a proclamation dated 25.11.1949, stated that the Constitution of India, which was yet to be promulgated, would apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Also, by a proclamation dated 20.4.1951, a Constituent Assembly was to be set up on the basis of adult franchise in order that this Assembly give to the State its own Constitution. The judgment then goes on to refer to the Jammu & Kashmir Presidential Order of 1950 and its amendments, which was then supplanted by the 1954 Order. It then goes on to state that, whereas sub-clause (1) (b) (i) of 370 requires only consultation with the Government of the State, sub-clause (ii) requires concurrence, which scheme applies under sub-clause (d) of the said Article in relation to the extension or modification of other provisions of the Indian Constitution as well. Under sub-clause (d), other provisions of the Constitution may, by Presidential Order, be held to apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. If matters specified in the Instrument of Accession are to be applied, then there is only consultation with the Government of the State, and if not, there must be concurrence. The scheme of Article 370(1), therefore, is clear. Since the Instrument of Accession is an agreement between the erstwhile Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union of India, it must be respected, in which case if a matter is already provided for in it, it would become applicable straightaway without more, and only consultation with the Government of the State is necessary in order to work out the modalities of the extension of the provisions of the Government of India Act corresponding to the Constitution of India referred to in it. However, when it comes to applying the provisions of the Constitution of India which are not so reflected in the Instrument of Accession, they cannot be so applied without the concurrence of the Government of the State, meaning thereby that they can only be applied if the State Government accepts that they ought to be so applied. Under Article 370(2), the concurrence of the Government of the State, given before the Constituent Assembly is convened, can only be given effect to if ratified by the Constituent Assembly. This legislative scheme therefore illustrates that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is to be dealt with separately owing to the special conditions that existed at the time of the Instrument of Accession. 14. Under sub-clause (1)(d) of Article 370, other provisions of the Indian Constitution shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify. In Puranlal Lakhanpal v. President of India, (1962) 1 SCR 688, this Court held that "modification" in sub-clause (d) is a very wide expression which includes amendment by way of change. This Court held: "The question that came for consideration in In re: Delhi Laws Act case(') was with respect to the power of delegation to a subordinate authority in making subordinate legislation. It was in that context that the observations were made that the intention of the law there under consideration when it used the word "modification" was that the Central Government would extend certain laws to Part C States without any radical alteration in them. But in the present case we have to find out the meaning of the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1) in the context of the Constitution. As we have said already the object behind enacting Art. 370(1) was to recognise the special position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and to provide for that special position by giving power to the President to apply the provisions of the Constitution to that State with such exceptions and modifications as the President might by order specify. We have already pointed out that the power to make exceptions implies that the President can provide that a particular provision of the Constitution would not apply to that State. If therefore the power is given to the President to efface in effect any provision of the Constitution altogether in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it seems that when he is also given the power to make modifications that power should be considered in its widest possible amplitude. If he could efface a particular provision of the Constitution altogether in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we see no reason to think that the Constitution did not intend that he should have the power to amend a particular provision in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It seems to us that when the Constitution used the word "modification" in Art. 370(1) the intention was that the President would have the power to amend the provisions of the Constitution if he so thought fit in their application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. VI) the word 'modify" means inter alia "to make partial changes in; to change (as object) in respect of some of its qualities; to alter or vary without radical transformation". Similarly the word "modification" means "the action of making changes in an object without altering its essential nature or character; the state of being thus changed; partial alteration". Stress is being placed on the meaning "to alter or vary without radical transformation" on behalf of the petitioner; but that is not the only meaning of the words "modify" or "modification". The word "modify" also means "to make partial changes in" and "modification" means "partial alteration". If therefore the President changed the method of direct election to indirect election he was in essence making a partial change or partial alteration in Art. 81 and therefore the modification made in the present case would be even within the dictionary meaning of that word. But, in law, the word "modify" has even a wider meaning. In "Words and Phrases" by Roland Burrows, the primary meaning of the word "modify" is given as "to limit" or "restrict" but it also means mto vary" and may even mean to "extend" or "enlarge". Thus in law the word "modify" may just mean "vary", i.e., amend; and when Art. 370(1) says that the President may apply the provisions of the Constitution to the State of Jammu and Kashmir with such modifications as he may by order specify it means that he may vary (i.e., amend) the provisions of the Constitution in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. We are therefore of opinion that in the context of the Constitution we must give the widest effect to the meaning of the word 'modification" used in Art. 370(1) and in that sense it includes an amendment. There is no reason to limit the word "modifications" as used in Art. 370(1) only to such modifications as do not make any "radical transformation"." [pages 692 - 693] 15. It has been argued that Parliamentary legislation would also need the concurrence of the State Government before it can apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370. This is a complete misreading of Article 370 which makes it clear that once a matter in either the Union List or the Concurrent List is specified by a Presidential Order, no further concurrence is needed. Indeed, the argument is that a Constitutional amendment does not ipso facto apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir under the proviso to Article 368 as applicable in the said State unless there is concurrence of the State Government and therefore, logically, it must follow that Parliamentary legislation would also require concurrence of the State Government before it can be said to apply in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. We fail to understand or appreciate such an argument. A constitutional amendment is different in quality from an ordinary law and, as has been held by us, it is clear that the language of Article 368 proviso and the language of Article 370 are different and have to be applied according to their terms. 16. The Instrument of Accession of Jammu & Kashmir State is dated 26.10.1947, and states, in paragraphs 1, 3, 8, and 9, the following: "1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act'). 3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State. 8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State. 9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors." The Schedule which is referred to in clause 3 refers to defence, external affairs, communications and certain ancillary matters. 17. At this stage, it is necessary to see which of the provisions of the Constitution of India have in fact been applied by Article 370 to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. First and foremost, in sub-clause (1) (c) of Article 370, the provisions of Article 1 and Article 370 itself are said to apply by virtue of this sub-clause straightaway. In order to find out what other provisions of the Constitution have been extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we have necessarily to go to the Presidential Order of 1950. This Order, which is called the Constitution Application to Jammu & Kashmir Order, 1950, began rather warily by extending a few Entries in List I of Schedule 7 and applying only certain clauses and Articles of the Constitution. Since this Order and its amendments are of historical importance only, it is not necessary to refer to them in any detail, as it is the Constitution Application to Jammu & Kashmir Order, 1954, that superseded the 1950 Order, and went on to apply various provisions of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu & Kashmir that we are concerned with. Insofar as this case is concerned, it is important to note that, in Part XI, in Article 246, it was stated that the words, brackets, and figures "notwithstanding anything contained in clauses 2 and 3" occurring in clause 1, and clauses 2, 3, and 4 shall be omitted. Article 254 was also, by sub-clause (f) of paragraph 6, extended with certain modifications and omissions. The 7lh schedule Union List was extended containing most of the Entries therein except what was expressly omitted by clause 22. Interestingly enough, Entry 45 and 95 with which we are directly concerned were applied for the first time by this Order, and have continued to apply to the State since. Significantly, the State List and the Concurrent List of the 7th Schedule were omitted by the original 1954 Order. 18. This order has been amended repeatedly by a number of subsequent orders, and the Order with which we are directly concerned is the 1954 Order as amended from time to time. This Order adopts all the provisions of the Constitution of India as in force on the 20th June, 1964, together with certain amendments and modifications. The argument that Article 370(1 )(b) limits' the power of Parliament is answered by the fact that the entire Constitution of India, as it exists in 1964, has been made applicable by Presidential order to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, availing both Articles 370(1) (b) and (d) for this purpose. And the expression limited to' does not occur in Article 370(1 )(d),under which it is open to adopt the entire Constitution of India subject to exceptions and modifications, as has been noted above. The opening paragraphs of this Order read as follows:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 370 of the Constitution, the President, with the concurrence of the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is pleased to make the following Order:- 1.(1) This Order may be called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. (2) It shall come into force on the fourteenth day of May, 1954, and shall thereupon supersede the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950. 2. The provisions of the Constitution as in force on the 20th day of June, 1964 and as amended by the Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, the Constitution (Twenty-first Amendment) Act, 1967, Section 5 of the Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969, the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972, section 2 of the Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Act, 1973, section 2 of the Constitution (Thirty-third Amendment) Act, 1974, sections 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Constitution (Thirty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1975, the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975, the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976, sections 2, 3 and 6 of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 and the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988 which, in addition to article 1 and article 370, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the exceptions and modifications subject to which they shall so apply shall be as follows:-" By this Order, in Part XI of the Constitution of India, in Article 246 for the words, brackets, and figures "clauses (2) and (3)" occurring in clause (1), the word, brackets and figure "clause (2)" shall be substituted, and the words, brackets and figure "Notwithstanding anything in clause (3)," occurring in clause (2), and the whole of clauses (3) and (4) shall be omitted. This being the case, it is clear that Article 246 as applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir would read thus:- "246. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States (1) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 2 ), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the 7th Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List) (2) Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the 7th Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Concurrent List)" 19. Equally, Article 248 and Entry 97 List I have been modified so that Parliament has the residuary power to make laws only with respect to three subjects - (1) the prevention of activities involving terrorist acts, (2) the prevention of activities directed towards questioning or disrupting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or bringing about cession of any part of the territory of India, and (3) taxes on three specified subjects. Significantly, clause (f), which contained Article 254 in a modified form, was omitted by C.O. No.66, by which it has become clear that after 1963, Article 254 in its current form in the Constitution of India will apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Equally, in the 7th Schedule Union List, the omission of Entries has now come down to only four i.e. Entries 8, 9, 34, and 79, with a few other Entries being modified or substituted. Significantly, Entries 45 and 95 of List I continue to apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The State List continues to be omitted altogether, and from 1963 onwards, the Concurrent List applies to the State of Jammu & Kashmir with a number of Entries being omitted. What is of importance for the decision of this case is that Entry 6 dealing with the transfer of property and Entry 11A of the Concurrent List do not apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Entry 6 does not apply because it has not been extended to the State, and Entry 11A does not apply because the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, which introduced Entry 11A into the Concurrent List, is itself not applicable. 20. At this stage, it is important to refer to the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, 1956. This Constitution came into effect on 17.11.1956. Section 2(1 )(a), and Sections 3, 4, and 5 read as follows:- "2. Definitions:- (1) In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) "Constitution of India" means the Constitution of India as applicable in relation to this State; 3. Relationship of the State with the Union of lndia:-The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India. 4. Territory of the State:-The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State. 5. Extent of executive and legislative power of the State:- The executive and legislative power of the State extends to all matters except those with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for the State under the provisions of the Constitution of India." 21. What is important to note in this Constitution, which was drafted by a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise, is that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is stated to be an integral part of the Union of India, and that the executive and legislative power of the State extends to all matters except those with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for the State under Article 370 of the Constitution of India. A combined reading, therefore, of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the 1954 Presidential Order as amended from time to time, and the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, 1956 would lead to the following position insofar as the legislative competence of the Parliament of India vis-a-vis the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned: 1. All entries specified by the 1954 Order contained in List I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India would clothe Parliament with exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to the subject matters set out in those entries. 2. Equally, under the residuary power contained in Entry 97 List I read with Article 248, the specified subject matters set out would indicate that the residuary power of Parliament to enact exclusive laws relating to the aforesaid subject matters would extend only to the aforesaid subject matters and no further. 3. Parliament would have concurrent power with the State of Jammu & Kashmir with respect to the entries that are specified in the Presidential Order of 1954 under List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. This would mean that all the decisions of this Court on principles of repugnancy applicable to Article 254 would apply in full force to laws made which are relatable to these subject matters. 4. Every other subject matter which is not expressly referred to in either List I or List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, as applicable in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature of Jammu & Kashmir. 22. An argument was made by learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that the subjects mentioned in the State List of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India as originally adopted were frozen and can never be delegated or conferred on the Parliament so long as Article 370 remains, since under Article 370(1 )(b), the President could declare that the Parliament shall have power to make laws for the State of Jammu & Kashmir only on the fields of legislation mentioned in the Union List and the Concurrent List. We are afraid that this submission is also without force for the reason that Article 368 proviso, as applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, expressly allows any Constitutional amendment to the Constitution of India to be applied with the concurrence of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. This would include within its ken, an amendment which either adds to or subtracts from the State List and confers upon Parliament, either exclusively under List I or concurrently under List III, a subject matter hitherto in the State List. This has been so held in Sampat Prakash's case (supra). Also, in Puranlal Lakhanpal's case (supra), the expression "modifications" occurring in Article 370(1 )(d) has been construed not only to mean "to limit or restrict" but even "to extend or enlarge." Thus, the word "modification" must be given the widest meaning and would include all amendments which either limit or restrict or extend or enlarge the provisions of the Constitution of India. For this reason also it is clear that nothing can ever be frozen so long as the drill of Article 370 is followed. 23. Given this legislative scenario, we have now to examine SARFAESI in its applicability to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Entries 45 and 95 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India read as follows:- "45. Banking. 95. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List; admiralty jurisdiction." 24. The first significant thing to note is that recovery of debts by banks has been held to fall within Entry 45 List I. Thus, in Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association, (2002) 4 SCC 275, it has been held: "The Delhi High Court and the Guwahati High Court have held that the source of the power of Parliament to enact a law relating to the establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is Entry 11-A of List III which pertains to 11 administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts". In our opinion, Entry 45 of List I would cover the types of legislation now enacted. Entry 45 of List I relates to "banking". Banking operations would, inter alia, include accepting of loans and deposits, granting of loans and recovery of the debts due to the bank. There can be little doubt that under Entry 45 of List I, it is Parliament alone which can enact a law with regard to the conduct of business by the banks. Recovery of dues is an essential function of any banking institution. In exercise of its legislative power relating to banking, Parliament can provide the mechanism by which monies due to the banks and financial institutions can be recovered. The Tribunals have been set up in regard to the debts due to the banks. The special machinery of a Tribunal which has been constituted as per the preamble of the Act, "for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto" would squarely fall within the ambit of Entry 45 of List I. As none of the items in the lists are to be read in a narrow or restricted sense, the term "banking" in Entry 45 would mean legislation regarding all aspects of banking including ancillary or subsidiary matters relating to banking. Setting up of an adjudicatory body like the Banking Tribunal relating to transactions in which banks and financial institutions are concerned would clearly fall under Entry 45 of List I giving Parliament specific power to legislate in relation thereto." [para 14] 25. When it came to SARFAESI itself, this Court has held in Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala, (2009) 4 SCC 94: "Undisputedly, the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act have been enacted by Parliament under Entry 45 in List I in the 7th Schedule whereas the Bombay and Kerala Acts have been enacted by the State Legislatures concerned under Entry 54 in List II in the 7th Schedule. To put it differently, two sets of legislations have been enacted with reference to entries in different lists in the 7th Schedule. Therefore, Article 254 cannot be invoked per se for striking down State legislations on the ground that the same are in conflict with the Central legislations. That apart, as will be seen hereafter, there is no ostensible overlapping between two sets of legislations. Therefore, even if the observations contained in Kesoram Industries case [(2004) 10 SCC 201] are treated as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution, the State legislations cannot be struck down on the ground that the same are in conflict with Central legislations." [para 36] 26. In a recent judgment, namely, UCO Bank & Anr. V. Dipak Debbarma & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 11247 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 11250 of 2016] delivered by this Court on 25th November, 2016, this Court has held: "18. The Act of 2002 is relatable to the Entry of banking which is included in List I of the 7th Schedule. Sale of mortgaged property by a bank is an inseparable and integral part of the business of banking. The object of the State Act, as already noted, is an attempt to consolidate the land revenue law in the State and also to provide measures of agrarian reforms. The field of encroachment made by the State legislature is in the area of banking. So long there did not exist any parallel Central Act dealing with sale of secured assets and referable to Entry 45 of List I, the State Act, including Section 187, operated validly. However, the moment Parliament stepped in by enacting such a law traceable to Entry 45 and dealing exclusively with activities relating to sale of secured assets, the State law, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Act of 2002, must give way. The dominant legislation being the Parliamentary legislation, the provisions of the Tripura Act of 1960, pro tanto, (Section 187) would be invalid. It is the provisions of the Act of 2002, which do not contain any embargo on the category of persons to whom mortgaged property can be sold by the bank for realisation of its dues that will prevail over the provisions contained in Section 187 of the Tripura Act of 1960." 27. In this case, a Tripura Land Reform law, which was made under Entries 18 and 45 of List II, was pitted against SARFAESI which is made under Entry 45 List I. Despite the fact that the Tripura Act received the protection of Article 31B read with Ninth Schedule, it was held that the Tripura Act, Section 187 of which put a legislative embargo on the sale of mortgaged properties by a bank to any person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, was held to give way to the Parliamentary enactment SARFAESI made under Entry 45 List I. Though this judgment does not apply on all fours to the present case, it clearly establishes that SARFAESI is relatable to Entry 45 List I and that any enactment made under the State List would have to give way to SARFAESI by virtue of the application of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. 28. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, has also in paragraph 36, stated that the subject matter 'banking' in Entry 45 List I must be construed so as to comprehend within its scope all matters that are incidental to such subject matter. It was held: "The legislative entry in List I of the 7th Schedule is "Banking" and not "Banker" or "Banks". To include within the connotation of the expression "Banking" in Entry 45, List I, power to legislate in respect of all commercial activities which a banker by the custom of bankers or authority of law engages in, would result in re-writing the Constitution. Investment of power to legislate on a designated topic covers all matters incidental to the topic. A legislative entry being expressed in a broad designation indicating the contour of plenary power must receive a meaning conducive to the widest amplitude, subject however to limitations inherent in the federal scheme which distributes legislative power between the Union and the constituent units. The field of "banking" cannot be extended to include trading activities which not being incidental to banking encroach upon the substance of the entry "trade and commerce" in List II." [para 36] 29. A judgment of the Privy Council reported in Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for the Province of Quebec, 1947 Appeal Cases 33, also throws some light on what is the correct meaning to be given to the expression "banking". A Quebec Statute deemed as vacant property, without an owner, (which will now belong to His Majesty) all deposits or credits in credit institutions and other establishments which received funds or securities on deposit where for 30 years or more such deposits or credits are not the subject of any operation or claim by the persons entitled thereto. In an appeal from the Court of King's Bench of the Province of Quebec, the Bank of Montreal argued that the State Act was beyond the powers of the Quebec legislature as "banking" was one of the subjects allotted exclusively to the Parliament of Canada. Lord Porter, in an illuminating judgment, posed the question and answered it thus:- "Is then, the repayment of deposits to depositors or their successors in title under the law as existing a part of the business of banking or necessarily incidental thereto, or is it concerned primarily with property and civil rights or incidental to those subjects? Their Lordships cannot but think that the receipt of deposits and the repayment of the sums deposited to the depositors or their successors as defined above is an essential part of the business of banking." In this view of the matter, the Privy Council further held: "In their view, a Provincial legislature enters on the field of banking when it interferes with the right of depositors to receive payment of their deposits, as in their view it would if it confiscated loans made by a bank to its customers. Both are in a sense matters of property and civil rights, but in essence they are included within the category of banking." (At pages 44 and 46) 30. What is of significance to note is that since List II is not operative in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, there is no competing Entry in the said List and this would lead therefore to the conclusion that Entries 45 and 95 of List I must be given a wide meaning. Indeed, in a converse situation, this Court, in Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, 1972(2) SCR 33, had this to say: "It was also said that if this was the intention of the Constitution makers they need not have formulated List I at all. This is the point which was taken by Sardar Hukam Singh and others in the debates referred to above and was answered by Dr. Ambedkar. But apart from what has been stated by Dr. Ambedkar in his speech extracted above there is some merit and legal effect in having included specific items in List I for when there are three lists it is easier to construe List II in the light of Lists I and II. If there had been no List I, many items in List II would perhaps have been given much wider interpretation than can be given under the present scheme. Be that as it may, we have the three lists and a residuary power and therefore it seems to us that in this context if a Central Act is challenged as being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, it is enough to enquire if it is a law with respect to matters or taxes enumerated in List II. If it is not, no further question arises." (At page 67) 31. At this juncture, it is important to advert to State of Jammu & Kashmir v. M.S. Farooqui, (1972) 1 SCC 872. This judgment dealt with the interplay between the Jammu & Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 as against the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. In para 7 of the judgment it was noticed that Parliament could legislate by virtue of Entry 70 List I on All India Services, and Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution are referable to this Entry. This being the case, the question that this Court had to answer was as to whether the appellant, who was a member of the Indian Police Service, which is an All India Service, in the Jammu & Kashmir cadre, was liable to be governed by the All India Services Rules or by the Jammu & Kashmir Act. After dealing in some detail with judgments of this Court on legislative competence, this Court concluded:- "From the perusal of the provisions of the two statutory laws, namely, the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and the Jammu and Kashmir government servants1 Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962, it is impossible to escape from the conclusion that the two cannot go together. The impugned Act provides for additional punishments not provided in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. It also provides for suspension and infliction of some punishments. It seems to us that insofar as the Commission Act deals with the infliction of disciplinary punishments it is repugnant to the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Parliament has occupied the field and given clear indication that this was the only manner in which any disciplinary action should be taken against the members of the All India Services. Insofar as the Commission Act deals with a preliminary enquiry for the purposes of enabling any prosecution to be launched it may be within the legislative competence of the Jammu and Kashmir State and not repugnant to the provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. But as the provisions dealing with investigation for possible criminal prosecution are inextricably intertwined with the provisions dealing with infliction of disciplinary punishment the whole Act must be read down so as to leave the members of the All India Service outside its purview. We accordingly hold that the provisions of the Commission Act do not apply to the members of the All India Services. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. As the respondent was not represented there would be no order as to costs. We thank Mr. G.L. Sanghi for assisting us as amicus curiae." [paras 47 - 48] 32. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance to SARFAESI, it is clear that in pith and substance the entire Act is referable to Entry 45 List I read with Entry 95 List I in that it deals with recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, inter alia through facilitating securitization and reconstruction of financial assets of banks and financial institutions, and sets up a machinery in order to enforce the provisions of the Act. In pith and substance, SARFAESI does not deal with "transfer of property". In fact, in so far as banks and financial institutions are concerned, it deals with recovery of debts owing to such banks and financial institutions and certain measures which can be taken outside of the court process to enforce such recovery. Under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI, apart from recourse to taking possession of secured assets of the borrower and assigning or selling them in order to realise their debts, the banks can also take over the management of the business of the borrower, and/or appoint any person as manager to manage secured assets, the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor. Banks as secured creditors may also require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom money is due or payable to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. It is thus clear that the transfer of property, by way of sale or assignment, is only one of several measures of recovery of a secured debt owing to a bank and this being the case, it is clear that SARFAESI, as a whole, cannot possibly be said to be in pith and substance, an Act relatable to the subject matter "transfer of property". At this juncture it is necessary to point out that insofar as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned, Sections 17A and Section 18B of SARFAESI, which apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, substituted 'District Judge' and the 'High Court' for the 'Debts Recovery Tribunal' and the 'Appellate Tribunal' respectively. These provisions read as under:- "Section 17-A. Making of application to Court of District Judge in certain cases. In the case of a borrower residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the application under Section 17 shall be made to the Court of District Judge in that State having jurisdiction over the borrower which shall pass an order on such application. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Court of District Judge under this section. Section 18-B. Appeal to High Court in certain cases. Any borrower residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and aggrieved by any order made by the Court of District Judge under Section 17-A may prefer an appeal, to the High Court having jurisdiction over such Court, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Court of District Judge: Provided that no appeal shall be preferred unless the borrower has deposited, with the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, fifty per cent of the amount of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Court of District Judge, whichever is less: Provided further that the High Court may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent of the debt referred to in the first proviso." 33. It would be clear that these provisions are referable to Entry 45 as being ancillary to banking, and expressly to Entry 95 List I inasmuch as the jurisdiction and power of courts is laid down for the special subject of recovery of debts due to banks by these provisions. 34. In State of Maharashtra v. Narottamdas Jethabai, (1950) 1 SCR 51, this Court upheld the Bombay City Civil Courts Act, and in so doing, referred specifically to the following Entries in the legislative lists of the Government of India Act, 1935. Entry 53, List I: "Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List...." Entries 1 and 2, List II: "1. . . . the administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts except the Federal Court "2. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List ...." Entry 15, List III: "Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List." 35. Justices Fazal Ali, Mahajan, and Mukherjea held that 'Administration of Justice' contained in Entry 1 of List 2 of the Government of India Act, 7th Schedule, would include jurisdiction and power of courts generally, but that Entry 53 of List 1 would refer to special powers referable to a particular entry in the Union List as opposed to the general power contained in Entry 1 List 2. It was held, therefore, that but for an express provision like Entry 53 List 1, Parliament may not have been able to confer special jurisdiction on courts in regard to matters set out in legislative List 1. Two learned Judges, namely, Patanjali Sastri and Das, JJ. also upheld the Bombay Act, but on the basis that the expression "Administration of Justice" would be cut down by the expression "jurisdiction and power of all courts", and would not therefore include within its ken jurisdiction and power of courts. 36. Similarly in Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 591, this Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and the Bombay Courts of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1986 by holding in paragraph 53 as follows: "Thus, on and after 3-1-1977 the situation appears to be as under: (a) Parliament alone has the competence to legislate with respect to Entry 78 of List I to "constitute and organise" the High Court. (b) Both Parliament and the State Legislature can invest such a High Court with general jurisdiction by enacting an appropriate legislation referable to "administration of justice" under Entry 11-Aof List III. (c) Parliament may under Entry 95 of List I invest the High Court with jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I. (d) The State Legislature may invest the High Court with the jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II. (e) Both Parliament and the State Legislature may by appropriate legislation referable to Entry 46 of List III invest the High Court with jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III." [para 53] 37. It is thus clear on a reading of these judgments that SARFAESI as a whole would be referable to Entries 45 and 95 of List I. We must remember the admonition given by this Court in A.S. Krishna and others v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 399, that it is not correct to first dissect an Act into various parts and then refer those parts to different Entries in the legislative Lists. It is clear therefore that the entire Act, including Sections 17A and 18B, would in pith and substance be referable to Entries 45 and 95 of List I, and that therefore the Act as a whole would necessarily operate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. 38. The judgment of the High Court is wholly incorrect in referring to Entry 11A of the Concurrent List. First and foremost, as has been noted by us above, the Entry is not extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. From this, the counsel for the respondents sought to contend that Parliament would, therefore, have no power under the Concurrent List to legislate on the subject matter "Administration of Justice". Under Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, we have seen that "Administration of Justice" would come into play only when Entries 45 and 95 of List 1 are not attracted. Even if this were not so, we have seen in the two judgments cited hereinabove, the expression "administration of justice" is general and must give way to the special laws that are enacted under Entry 95 List I when coupled with another Entry in the same List - in this case Entry 45 List I. The relevant part of Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, on which great reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents, provides:- "140. Exemptions of certain instruments from restriction imposed on transfer of immovable property. Nothing contained in Irshad dated 29th Maghar, 1943, or any law, rule order, notification, regulation, hidyat, ailan, circular, robkar, yadasht, irshad, State Council resolution or any other instrument having the force of law prohibiting or restricting the transfer of immovable property in favour of a person who is not a permanent resident of the State shall apply to- (h) a simple mortgage of immovable property executed or created in favour of a public financial institution, I as specified in section 4-A of the Companies Act, 1956, a Scheduled bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Trustees for the holders of debentures to secure the loans, guarantees, issue of debentures or other form of financial assistance provided for developmental projects in the State of Jammu and Kashmir Like Baghliar Project of Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Limited. Provided that in any suit based on such mortgage, the mortgaged property shall be sold or transferred only to a permanent resident of the State or any financial institution or corporation managed and owned by the Government of India; 39. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to Rule 8(5) proviso of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which states as follows:- "Provided that in case of sale of immovable property in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1977 shall apply to the person who acquires such property in the State.". 40. This Rule makes it amply clear that Section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act of Jammu & Kashmir will be respected in auction sales that take place within the State. This being the case, it is clear that there is no collision or repugnancy with any of the provisions of SARFAESI, and therefore it is clear that the High Court is absolutely wrong in finding that as Section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act will be infracted, SARFAESI cannot be held to apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Rule 8 has been noticed but brushed aside by the aforesaid judgment. The High court judgment begins from the wrong end and therefore reaches the wrong conclusion. It states that in terms of Section 5 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, the State has absolute sovereign power to legislate in respect of laws touching the rights of its permanent residents qua their immovable properties. The State legislature having enacted Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, therefore, having clearly stated that the State's subjects/citizens are by virtue of the said provision protected, SARFAESI cannot intrude and disturb such protection. The whole approach is erroneous. As has been stated hereinabove, Entries 45 and 95 of List I clothe Parliament with exclusive power to make laws with respect to banking, and the entirety of SARFAESI can be said to be referable to Entry 45 and 95 of List I, 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. This being the case, Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution will only operate in areas in which Parliament has no power to make laws for the State Thus, it is clear that anything that comes in the way of SARFAESI by way of a Jammu & Kashmir law must necessarily give way to the said law by virtue of Article 246 of the Constitution of India as extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, read with Section 5 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. This being the case, it is clear that Sections 13(1) and (4) cannot be held to be beyond the legislative competence of Parliament as has wrongly been held by the High Court. 41. It is rather disturbing to note that various parts of the judgment speak of the absolute sovereign power of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It is necessary to reiterate that Section 3 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, which was framed by a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise, makes a ringing declaration that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India. And this provision is beyond the pale of amendment. Section 147 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution states:- "147. Amendment of the Constitution. - An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in the Legislative Assembly and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be presented to the Sadar-i-Riyasat for his assent and, upon such assent being given to the Bill, the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill: Provided that a Bill providing for the abolition of the Legislative Council may be introduced in the Legislative Assembly and passed by it majority of the total membership of the Assembly and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting: Provided further that no Bill or amendment seeking to make any change in: (a) this section; (b) the provisions of the sections 3 and 5; or (c) the provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable in relation to the State; shall be introduced or moved in either House of the Legislature." 42. It is also significant in this context to refer to the Preamble to the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, 1957 and compare it to that of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Preamble of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir reads as follows: "WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves- JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among us all; FRATERNITY assuring dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this seventeenth day of November, 1956, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION." It is to be noted that the opening paragraph of the Constitution of India, namely "WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens..." has been wholly omitted in the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. There is no reference to sovereignty. Neither is there any use of the expression "citizen" while referring to its people. The people of Jammu & Kashmir for whom special rights are provided in the Constitution are referred to as "permanent residents" under Part III of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. Above all, the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir has been made to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof. 43. It is thus clear that the State of Jammu & Kashmir has no vestige of sovereignty outside the Constitution of India and its own Constitution, which is subordinate to the Constitution of India. It is therefore wholly incorrect to describe it as being sovereign in the sense of its residents constituting a separate and distinct class in themselves. The residents of Jammu & Kashmir, we need to remind the High Court, are first and foremost citizens of India. Indeed, this is recognized by Section 6 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution which states: "6. Permanent residents:-(1) Every person who is, or is deemed to be, a citizen of India under the provisions of the Constitution of India shall be a permanent resident of the State, if on the fourteenth day of May, 1954- (a) he was a State Subject of Class I or of Class II; or (b) having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to that date. (2) Any person who, before the fourteenth day of May, 1954, was a State Subject of Class I or of Class II and who having migrated after the first day of March, 1947, to the territory now included in Pakistan, returns to the State under a permit for resettlement in the State or for permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law made by the State Legislature shall on such return be a permanent resident of the State. (3) In this section, the expression "State Subject of Class I or of Class II" shall have the same meaning as in State Notification No. 1-L/84 dated the twentieth April, 1927, read with State Notification No. 13/L dated the twenty 7th June, 1932." They are governed first by the Constitution of India and also by the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. This is made clear by Section 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution which states: "10. Rights of the permanent residents:- The permanent, residents of the State shall have all the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India." We have been constrained to observe this because in at least three places the High Court has gone out of its way to refer to a sovereignty which does not exist. 44. Again it is wholly incorrect to refer to Entry 11A of List 3 and to state that since it is not extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, Parliament would have no legislative competence to enact Sections 17A and 18B of SARFAESI. There are at least three errors in this conclusion. First and foremost, it is not possible to dissect the provisions of SARFAESI and attach them to different Entries under different Lists. As has been held by us, the whole of SARFAESI is referable to Entry 45 and 95 of List I. Secondly, what has been missed by the impugned judgment is that Entry 95 List I is a source of legislative power for Parliament for conferring power and jurisdiction on the District Court and the High Court respectively in respect of matters contained in SARFAESI. And third, the subject "Administration of Justice" is only general and can be referred to only if Entry 95 List I read with Entry 45 List I are not attracted. We are afraid that despite the judgment in Narottamdas Jethabai and Jamshed Guzdar's case (supra), the High Court, even though it refers to Narottamdas Jethabai, has completely missed this crucial aspect. Most importantly, even if it is found that Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act entitles only certain persons to purchase properties in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, yet, as has been held hereinabove, Rule 8(5) proviso which recognizes this provision, has been brushed aside. In any case an attempt has first to be made to harmonise Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act with SARFAESI, and if such harmonization is impossible, it is clear that by virtue of Article 246 read with Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act has to give way to SARFAESI, and not the other way around. 45. Reliance has also been placed on Article 35A of the Constitution as it applies to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The said Article reads as follows: "35A. Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State,- (a) Defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; or (b) Conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects- (i) employment under the State Government; (ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State; (iii) settlement in the State; or (iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, Shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part." 46. We fail to understand how Article 35A carries the matter any further. This Article only states that the conferring on permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir special rights and privileges regarding the acquisition of immovable property in the State cannot be challenged on the ground that it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian Constitution. The conferring of such rights and privileges as mentioned in Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act is not the subject matter of challenge on the ground that it violates any fundamental right of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, in view of Rule 8(5) proviso, such rights are expressly preserved. 47. We find that the High Court judgment ultimately states: "It is held that the Union Parliament does not have legislative competence to make laws contained in section 13, section 17(A), section 18(B) section 34, 35 and section 36, so far as they relate to the State of J&K; It is further held that in view of the aforesaid declaration, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be enforced in the State of J&K; It is further held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can be availed of by the banks, which originate from the State of J&K for securing the monies which are due to them and which have been advanced to the borrowers, who are not State subjects and residents of the State of J&K and who are non State subjects/ non citizens of the State of J&K and residents of any other State of India excepting the State of J&K." Having held that the provisions of SARFAESI cannot be applied to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, it is a contradiction in terms to state that SARFAESI can be availed of by banks which originate from the State of Jammu & Kashmir for securing monies which are due to them and which have been advanced to borrowers who are not the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. 48. We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court. As a result, notices issued by banks in terms of Section 13 and other coercive methods taken under the said Section are valid and can be proceeded with further. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

.......................J. (Kurian Joseph)

.......................J. (R.F. Nariman)

New Delhi;

December 16, 2016.

Article 35 A

What is Article 35A?

Article 35A and its significance, Aug 8, 2017: The Times of India

Article 35A of the Constitution of India,unknown to the public domain till recent times, has raked up an intense debate in the country. Political narrative has a paradigm shift. Here's all you want to know about the article:

WHAT IS ARTICLE 35A?

Article 35A of the constitution empowers J&K legislature to define state's "permanent residents" and their special rights and privileges. It was added to the constitution through a presidential order of 1954 with the then J&K government's concurrence

WHAT IS ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO J&K?

• Through 1927 and 1932 notifications, Dogra ruler of the princely state of J&K, Maharaja Hari Singh imposed a law that defined state subjects and their rights. The law also regulated migrants to the state. J&K joined India through instrument of accession signed by its ruler Hari Singh in October 1947.

• After J&K's accession, popular leader Sheikh Abdullah took over reins from Dogra ruler. In 1949, he negotiated J&K's political relationship with New Delhi, which led to the inclusion of Article 370 in the Constitution.

• Article 370 guarantees special status to J&K,restricting Union's legislative powers over three areas: defence, foreign affairs and communications.

• However, under the 1952 Delhi Agreement between Abdullah and Nehru, several provisions of the Constitution were extended to J&K via presidential order in 1954. Article 35A was inserted then.

• J&K's Constitution was framed in 1956. It retained Maharaja's definition of permanent residents: All persons born or settled within the state before 1911 or after having lawfully acquired immovable property resident in the state for not less than ten years prior to that date. All emigrants from Jammu and Kashmir, including those who migrated to Pakistan, are considered state subjects. The descendants of emigrants are considered state subjects for two generations.

• Permanent residents law prohibits non-permanent residents from permanent settlement in the state, acquiring immovable property, govt jobs, scholarships and aid.
• It was also interpreted as discriminatory against J&K women. It disqualified them from their state subject rights if they married non-permanent residents. But, in a landmark judgment in October 2002, J&K high court held that women married to non-permanent residents will not lose their rights. The children of such women don't have succession rights.

WHY IS ARTICLE 35A BEING DEBATED?

• An NGO, We the Citizens, challenged 35A in SC in 2014 on grounds that it was not added to the Constitution through amendment under Article 368. It was never presented before Parliament, and came into effect immediately, the group argued.
• In another case in SC last month, two Kashmiri women argued that the state's laws, flowing from 35A, had disenfranchised their children.

WHY ARE POLITICAL PARTIES & SEPARATISTS OPPOSED TO TINKERING WITH 35A?

Fear that it would lead to further erosion of J&K's autonomy and trigger demographic change in Muslim majority valley. Political parties say Kashmir resolution lies in greater autonomy; separatists fan paranoia against possibility of Hindus 'flooding' the valley. However, in the last 70 years, demography of Kashmir Valley has remained unchanged even as Hindu majority in Jammu and Buddhists in Ladakh have rights to buy property and settle in the Valley.

Why 35A has always been controversial

Aarti Singh, August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Why Article 35A has always been controversial
From: Aarti Singh, August 5, 2019: The Times of India

The Article of Contention: Why 35A has always been controversial

Article 35A of the Indian Constitution empowers the J&K legislature to define the state’s “permanent residents” and their special rights and privileges. The law was inserted in the Constitution through a presidential order of 1954 instead of a parliamentary amendment under Article 368.

• 35A is based on Article 370, a temporary and transitional provision that was included in the Indian Constitution, on the terms negotiated between J&K’s popular leader Sheikh Abdullah and the Centre led by then PM Jawaharlal Nehru in 1949

• Article 370 guarantees special status to J&K, restricting the Union’s legislative powers to just three areas — defence, foreign affairs and communications. As a result, J&K adopted its own constitution in 1956

• The law related to Permanent Residency in J&K Constitution is drawn from the state subject laws introduced by Maharaja Hari Singh in the early 20th century during the Dogra rule. J&K was a princely state until 1947 when it acceded with India using Instrument of Accession (IOA)

• The Permanent Residency laws of J&K are based on Maharaja Hari Singh’s two notifications issued in 1927 and 1932, which defined state subjects and their rights. The Dogra laws were introduced to prevent influx of migrants from neighbouring Punjab during the British rule

• J&K defines its permanent residents as “all persons born or settled within the state before 1911 or after having lawfully acquired immovable property and residence in the state for not less than 10 years or prior to that date”. All emigrants from J&K, including those who migrated to Pakistan, are considered state subjects. The descendants of emigrants are considered state subjects for two generations

• The law prohibits non-permanent residents from settling permanently in the state, acquiring immovable property, government jobs, scholarships and aid

• However, the law is discriminatory against J&K women. It disqualified them from their state subject rights if they married non-permanent residents. But in a landmark order in October 2002, the J&K HC held that women married to nonpermanent residents will not lose their rights. However, children of such women don’t have succession rights as of now

• 35A has been a subject of public debate and controversy ever since it was challenged in the SC in 2014 on the grounds that it was not added to the Constitution through amendment under Article 368 and never presented before Parliament. It was also challenged by Kashmiri women married to ‘outsiders’, arguing that the state’s permanent residency law, flowing from 35A, had disenfranchised their children

• Though the case is sub judice, the government can bring a bill in Parliament to scrap Article 35A. Since BJP in its manifesto and poll campaign has committed itself to its revocation, there is speculation that the Centre will table a bill during the ongoing session

• Kashmir’s entire political leadership is against the revocation of 35A because it fears that opening up the state to non-permanent residents can change the demography of the only Muslim majority state in India. However, in the last 70 years, the religious demography has remained unchanged even as Hindu majority in Jammu and Buddhists in Ladakh can legally buy land and property in the Valley

1950- Aug 2019: President used Art 370 power six times

Dhananjay Mahapatra, Nov 12, 2019: The Times of India

The Centre has told the Supreme Court the decision to scrap “special status” of J&K was Constitution-compliant and taken in the interest of India’s security. It has expressed surprise that the validity of the August 5 move has been questioned when six earlier instances of the use of Article 370(1) (d) while the assembly wasn’t in existence attracted no legal challenge.

In its affidavit responding to a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the August 5 move, the Centre said the decision had been taken following the constitutionally-mandated process as the regime that had existed under Article 370 was “impeding full integration of erstwhile state of J&K with the rest of the country...”

SC may take up pleas challenging Art 370 move

Addressing the issue of its use of Article 370(I) (d) without the concurrence of J&K assembly to do away with the “special status” for the strategically significant state, it has pointed out that the President had exercised the very same provision that was used on August 5 six times in the past, without anyone challenging such exercise of power.

In an affidavit responding to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of exercise of power under Article 370(1) (d) by the President to alter the status of erstwhile state of J&K as well as Parliament’s decision to divide the state into two Union Territories, the ministry said, “There had been three amendments till August 4, 2019 in Article 370, which were modified in the past in exercise of powers under Article 370(1) (d), from time to time.”

The petitions are pending adjudication before a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana and are likely to be taken up on November 14. The Centre said the first Presidential Order, under Article 370(1)(d), was passed on January 26, 1950. This was superseded and replaced by another Presidential Order in 1954, which in turn was amended on more than 50 occasions from time to time, it said.

The MHA said terrorism, militancy and separatism have seriously impeded overall economic development of the state despite large monetary support from the government of India.

The debate on altering it

Akhilesh Singh, BJP faction for altering Art 35A on J&K `permanent residents', August 6, 2017: The Times of India

Away from the attention that Article 370 usually invites, a section of BJP sympathisers are steadily pushing the party's less-noticed promise of altering Article 35A of the Constitution, which empowers the J&K government to define “permanent residents“ of the state.

The article enables the state to provide special rights and privileges that permanent residents can enjoy but has been criticised by BJP as a provision that encourages alienation, deepens the concept of a separate identity and creates a political gap between J&K and the rest of India.

Under the Article, state laws have barred non-residents from purchasing land in the state and the issue is in focus with a Kashmiri woman, Charu Wali Khan, recently filing a petition seeking changes in the constitutional provision as she wanted succession rights though she is settled outside the state. Responding to her plea, the Supreme Court sent notices to the Centre and state last month. The woman has argued that the state's laws, flowing from Article 35A, have disenfranchised her.

Advocate General K Venugopal told the bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud that the petition against Article 35A raised “very sensitive“ questions that required a “larger debate“.The court referred the matter to a three-judge bench and has set a six-week deadline for final disposal. The bench is likely to deliver its verdict in September first week. Union minister Jitendra Singh said that since the matter was sub judice, one should wait for the court's verdict. He said the court verdict would be bin ding on all.

State BJP leaders are vocal about their views as they strongly feel that Article 35A should be repealed. “Article 35A is a constitutional mistake. It was incorporated through a presidential order and not through the parliamentary process,“claimed Surinder Amabardar, BJP MLC from the state.

The Centre's stance seeking a “larger debate“ set off alarm bells among a section of politicians in the Kashmir valley , prompting CM Mehbooba Mufti's outburst during the Foundation Day celebrations of her PDP party . She asserted Article 35A should not be tinkered with, saying there would be no one to hold the tricolour if provisions regarding special status to J&K residents were altered.

A fraud on Constitution or necessity ?

K. B. Jandial , Article 35 A : a fraud on Constitution or necessity ? "Daily Excelsior" 30/8/2015

Unknown in the public domain till recent times, Article 35-A of the Constitution of India has raked up an intense debate in Kashmir. Political narrative has a paradigm shift. From the wild cries of “erosion of autonomy” and forewarning of “annulment of accession of J&K with India in the event of abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution”, today Article 35-A is the focus of Kashmir press. Kashmir got a new issue to lash at R S S and BJP.

Contrary to the popular perception across the country including in J&K, it is Article 35-A of the Constitution and not Article 370, that helps J&K State in debarring all non state subject Indians from acquiring property or getting Govt. jobs.

Even though the constitutional validity of Art. 35-A was challenged last year( July 23, 2014)by a Delhi based NGO, “We, the Citizens” in the Supreme Court, Kashmir rocked only recently when R S S sponsored think tank “Jammu & Kashmir Study Centre” began its campaign on Article 35-A which it considers a sinister executive insertion in the Constitution that is blatantly discriminatory in nature which has victimized individuals and groups even within the state by denying them the basic rights.

The Supreme Court on August 17, 2015 granted time up to the first week of November this year to J&K and Central Govts to file their response on 51-page petition which A G Noorani describes as “reeks of emotive politics, factual errors, and far- fetched argument which are manifestly absurd”. Noorani feels that the Apex Court should not entertain such petitions. How a legal luminary of his standing forgets that every Indian is free to discuss, challenge and seek judicial scrutiny of any matter. Whatever views Noorani airs, the fact remains that the issue is in no way frivolous.

The Supreme Court is all set to examine the constitutional validity of the Presidential order issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In a way, the Presidential order of 1954 made chapter III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights, inapplicable to the State by resorting to “exceptions or modifications”. It safeguards special law relating to permanent residents granting special privileges to them in respect of acquisition of immovable property and Govt. employments to the exclusion of all other Indians. It is probably for the first time that the people are learning about existence of Article 35- A powered by article 370 as it is not found in most of the books of the Constitution of India and as such it explains people’s ignorance.

While Article 370 Cl 1 (c) says that the provisions of articles 1 and 370 shall apply in relation to J&K but at the same time, clause 1(d) provides a mechanism for extension of other provisions. It mandates that “such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify”. Such order is required to be issued with the “concurrence of the State Government.

Invoking powers vested in him under article 370 cl (d), the President issued “The Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order 1954 on May 14, 1954 (C.O.48)” where under many provisions of the Constitution and entries of schedules were made applicable to J&K. The order, inter alia, says, “After article 35, the following new article shall be added, namely:-

“35A. Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights;- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State: ( a) defining the classes or persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; or ( b) conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects:- ( i) employment under the State Government; ( ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State; ( iii) settlement in the State; or ( iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part.”

With roots in Maharaja’s notification no. 1-L/84 of 20th April 1927 read with notification no.13/L dated 27th June, 1932, Article 35-A is the outcome of Delhi Agreement reached between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and J& K Prime Minister, Sheikh Abdullah in July 1952. The Constituent Assembly sanctified this controversial law five decades after these were notified by Maharaja Hari Singh. The PM received a high level delegation from J&K headed by Sheikh Abdullah himself on 20th July 1952,. The other members were Mirza Afzal Beg, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, Girdhari Lal Dogra & D. P. Dhar, all senior members of the Cabinet and members of the Constituent Assembly.

On July 24, 1952 Nehru informed Lok Sabha about Delhi agreement. On State subject provisions,he said, “The question of citizenship arose obviously. Full citizenship applies there. But our friends from Kashmir were very apprehensive about one or two matters. For a long time past, in the Maharaja’s time, there had been laws preventing any outsider, that is, any person from outside Kashmir, from acquiring or holding land in Kashmir. If I mention it, in the old days the Maharaja was very much afraid of a large number of Englishmen coming and settling down there, because the climate is delectable, and acquiring property. So although most of their rights were taken away from the Maharaja under the British rule, the Maharaja stuck to this that nobody from outside should acquire land there. And that continues.

“And in the state subject’ notification by the Maharaja, they defined grades of subjects….. And unless you come in one of these classes, you just cannot acquire land there, or any immovable property. So the present Government of Kashmir is very anxious to preserve that right because they are afraid, and I think rightly afraid, that Kashmir would be overrun by people whose sole qualification might be the possession of too much money and nothing else, who might buy up, and get the delectable places. Now they want to vary the old Maharaja’s laws to liberalize it, but nevertheless to have checks on the acquisition of lands by persons from outside. So far as we are concerned, I agree that under Article 19, clause (5), of our Constitution, we think it is clearly permissible both in regard to the existing law and any subsequent legislation. However, we agree that this should be cleared up. The old state subjects definition gave certain privileges regarding acquisition of land, the services, and other minor things, I think, State scholarships and the rest. So, we agreed and noted this down. (cl (5) of article 19 safeguards such existing laws).

“The State legislature shall have power to define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of the State, more especially in regard to the acquisition of immovable property, appointments to services and like matters. Till then the existing State law should apply”, Pt Nehru explained the agreement.

Sheikh Abdullah too made a statement to the Constituent Assembly on Delhi Agreement on 11th August, 1952. On State Subject law, he said: “It was agreed that in accordance with Article 5 of the Indian Constitution persons who have their domicile in the Jammu and Kashmir State shall be the citizens of India. It was further agreed that the State legislature shall have power to define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of the State more especially in regard to acquisition of immovable property, appointments to services and like matters. Till then the existing State law would apply. It was also agreed that special provision should be made in the laws governing citizenship to provide for the return of those permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State, who went to Pakistan in connection with the disturbance of 1947 or in fear of them as well as of those who had left for Pakistan earlier but could not return. If they returned, they should be entitled to the rights, and privileges and obligations of citizenship.

“There are historic reasons which necessitate such constitutional safeguards as for centuries past, the people of the State have been victims of exploitation at the hands of their well- to- do neighbours. The Hon’ble Members are perhaps aware that in the late twenties, the people of Jammu and Kashmir agitated for the protection of their bona fide rights against the superior competing interests of the non- residents of the State. It was in response to this popular demand that the Govt. of the day promulgated a Notification in 1927 by which a strict definition of the term “State Subject” was provided. I am glad to say that the Govt. of India appreciated the need for such a safeguard. No definition of the special rights and privileges of the residents of the State can afford to remain static. The need may arise at one stage or the other to liberalise such a definition. The importance of the fact that State Legislature shall retain powers to be able to effect such modifications becomes obvious in this context.”

The historic Delhi Agreement records the agreement reached on the existing State Subject law in following manner:

ii. “it was agreed between the two Governments that in accordance with Article 5 of the Indian Constitution, persons who have their domicile in Jammu and Kashmir shall be regarded as citizens of India, but the State legislature was given power to make laws for conferring special rights and privileges on the ‘state subjects’ in view of the ‘State Subject Notifications of 1927 and 1932: the State legislature was also empowered to make laws for the ‘State Subjects’ who had gone to Pakistan on account of the communal disturbances of 1947, in the event of their return to Kashmir;”

Consequent upon Delhi Agreement, J&K Constituent Assembly made special provisions for State Subjects from Section 6 to 10. As explained by Sheikh Abdullah, the term State Subject underwent change to Permanent Residents which is defined in Section 6. In addition to existing two classes of State Subjects as per Maharaja Notifications, Section 6 expanded the scope of definition by making a provision that any Indian citizen having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to that date (May14, 1954). A provision was also made for those state subjects who migrated to POK and return on valid document for resettlement. Constitution doesn’t make it time bound.

While Maharaja Hari Singh, as Nehru explained, was motivated to issue State Subject notifications to prevent Englishmen and probably others too, to take Govt. jobs & acquire land in J&K, Sheikh Abdullah retained these provisions, obviously to protect State’s Muslim majority character. Nehru had no choice but to agree as J&K was the only Muslim majority state in secular India. So, it was more of a political imperative than legal imperative.

On the face of it, Article 35-A is in direct conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is highly discriminatory in nature. Article 14 grants to all citizens right to equality before the law or equal protection of the laws while Article 16 provides a right of equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment for appointment to any office under the State. Therefore, Article 35-A impinges upon the fundamental rights of other citizens of India. Since J&K’s existing law granting special privileges to its State Subjects to the exclusion of all other Indian citizens amounts to violation of their fundamental rights, insertion of Article 35-A was found necessary to grant constitutional safeguard from being strike down by the courts as ultra vires. But many still holds it a fraud on the Constitution as it has neither mandate of Constitution nor of Parliament.

Empowering Parliament to amend the Constitution, Article 368 (i) says,” Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.”

On the other hand, article 370 lays down a separate mechanism for extension of other provisions of the Constitution to J&K subject to such “exceptions and modifications” as the President may by order specify.

Does insertion of Article 35- A in the Constitution for exclusive application to J&K amount to “exception or modification” as prescribed in Article 370 cl (1) (d)? If not, then does the President have power to add a new article in the Constitution by an executive order bypassing the Parliament which exercises its constituent power while amending the Constitution ? Doesn’t addition of new article by President amount to amendment of the Constitution for which the power vests alone in Parliament under article 368? Who is sovereign- Parliament, President or J& K Legislature? It is quite a complicated issue.

The arguments of J&K Sturdy Circle cannot be dumped in to dustbin. It questions President invoking powers from a “temporary provision” i.e. Article 370 (1) to amend the permanent provisions of the Constitution. The Presidential order violates the basic structure of the constitution -separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, and constitution’s amending power of Parliament. Argument has merit that since Parliament represents the will of people including of J&K the Constitution empowers it to amend constitution as per the scheme prescribes in article 368. The Parliament is supreme and sovereign.

Arun Jaitley as LOP Rajya Sabha posted on Facebook on Dec. 5, 2013 that “Should a provision like Article 35-A, which exists only because of Article 370 have place in any civilized society?” Jaitley asked.

“It is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. On a bare reading, it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. I wonder if its constitutional validity will be challenged at some point of time.” Whether he still holds same views as a Minister of NDA but article 35-validity has been challenged.

The contrary view, coming from Kashmir, is that the petition ” attempts to undo a constitutionally settled position which is not permissible as Article 370 and Article 35A are basic features of the Constitution and the constitutional arrangement between two states, and are, therefore, untouchable.” Kashmir’s legal experts assert that the grounds on which the petition has been filed are “legally and constitutionally misconceived,” and it raises questions which are political in nature. The courts cannot entertain petitions which involve political issues as ‘it betrays the faith of the people in constitutional democracy,” they argue.

Notwithstanding these views, the Supreme Court may examine provisions of Article 370 that vests in the President unusual powers to extend others provisions of the Constitution of India with suitable “exception or modification”. If SC strikes down this constitutional scheme, J&K would return to 1954 position, another dangerous consequence. And if it upholds the constitutional scheme under article 370, it will have to determine whether addition of article 35-A comes under the expression “exception or modification”? As a student of constitutional law, amendment is all inclusive, includes addition, deletion, exception and modification but the country has to wait for Apex Court’s judgment.

Discriminatory ?

Dr Ganesh Malhotra , Art 35-A:Discriminatory in nature "Daily Excelsior" 14/5/2017

On May 14, 1954, the President of India issued an order called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1954. It came into effect immediately and superseded the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1950.

Besides carrying out many modifications and changes, this presidential order ‘added’ to the Constitution of India, a new Article namely 35A as an amendment to Article 35. The 1954 order states it is being issued “in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution, with the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir”. No amendment in Indian Constitution can be done without Parliament without following procedures mentioned in Article 368.

Article 35A was never presented before Parliament of India. Unlike other amendments, it appears in the Constitution as an appendix and is not listed in the list of amendments either.

Article 35-A has discriminated Permanent Residents of Jammu and Kashmir instead of Protecting the Permanent Resident. But it is propagated that this provision is for the protection of Permanent Residents of J&K. This provision has multiplied the miseries of many people in J&K instead of protecting them. The main worst sufferers are:

Women Permanent Residents

Backed by Article 35-A Section 6 as adopted and strictly enforced by the State Government reads: (I) “Every person who is, or is deemed to be, a citizen of India under the provisions of the Constitution of India shall be a permanent resident of the State, if on the fourteenth day of May, 1954, (a) he was a state subject of class I or of class II, or (b) having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to this date” and (II) “any person who, before the fourteenth day of May, 1954 was a State Subject of class I or of class II and who, having migrated after the first day of March, 1947, to the territory – now included in Pakistan, returns to state under a permit for resettlement in the State or for permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law made by the State Legislature shall on such return be a permanent resident of the State”.

As for Sections 8 and 9, the former gives the State Legislature the right to define Permanent Residents and the latter empowers the State Legislature to alter the definition of Permanent Residents.

All the laws framed by Maharaja Hari Singh or subsequent Government were Gender neutral. They defined the Permanent resident not Male permanent resident or female resident. But later on notwithstanding anything in PRC act the concept of “Valid Till Marriage” got introduced in it without any legal sanction.

Up to 2002, the Revenue Department was issuing Permanent Resident Certificates (PRCs) to the female residents of Jammu and Kashmir with the endorsement as “Valid Till Marriage”. This became ground for a petition before the State High Court about 15 years back whereby selection of a doctor was challenged on the plea that she was married to non state subject.

The judgment of Single Judge whereby selection was quashed was challenged in the Division Bench of J&K High Court and keeping in view the involved legal issue a Full Bench comprising of Justice V Jhanji, Justice T Doabia and Justice M Jan was constituted.

The reference before the Full Bench was: “Whether the daughter of a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir marrying a non-permanent resident loses her status as a permanent resident of State, to hold, inherit and acquire immovable property in the State?”

In view of the majority opinion, the Full Bench in a case titled Jammu and Kashmir Versus Dr Sushila Sawhney and Others held that a daughter of a permanent resident marrying a non-permanent resident will not lose the status of permanent resident of State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Though the State Government initially filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the verdict of Full Bench of J&K High Court but later withdrew the same after making an opinion that it will carry out necessary amendments in the Act governing issuance of PRCs.

In March 2004, an attempt was made by the PDP-led coalition government to bypass the High Court’s landmark judgment. It moved an official Bill after the tough stand of Hon’ble Supreme Court which was passed in a record 6 minutes.

But the Bill was declared “defeated” in the Legislative Council. The main reason was that the bill had created a storm in Jammu and at the national level as anti-women, reactionary and out-dated.

J&K High Court on four occasions delivered judgments aimed at ensuring gender equality. The judgments were unambiguous and were hailed by one and all.

Unnecessary confusion has been created to implement the judgement of Hon’ble High Court in Dr Susheela Sawney case and thereafter. After 15 years of Judgement the situation seems to be at the same point. Despite clear Judgement of Hon’ble High Court and law position a Committee has been constituted to deliberate on matters which are already settled. Central Govt cannot intervene because of Article 35-A.

If a woman marries outside the state:

When women belonging to the state of Jammu-Kashmir marry outsiders, they cannot settle in the state even if the circumstances so demand.

A man from another state marrying J&K a woman cannot get PRC, hence none of the associated benefits. Which means he cannot buy land, cannot apply for a government job, his children cannot study in state-run professional colleges and institutes.

This means if a woman marries outside the state, she is virtually forced to leave the state and settle elsewhere. Earlier, such women used to completely lose the ‘permanent resident status’. But still her off springs and spouse don’t get PRC which is not there in case of male.

Now questions are:

• When Permanent resident law is gender neutral then how discrimination is being allowed to women in the name of gender?

• Are there any separate laws for male permanent residents?

• Whether Article 35-A was introduced to protect Permanent Residents or to discriminate?

• Is it not Human rights violation?

The most depressing story is that of safai karamcharis in Jammu-Kashmir.In 1957, around 200 Valmiki families were brought from Punjab to Jammu-Kashmir, following a cabinet decision, specifically to be employed as Safai Karamcharis (sweepers).

These families agreed to work in the state after being promised that the ‘permanent resident’ clause would be relaxed in their favour. After a lapse of five decades, family strength of each family has increased and number of employees has gone up. However, their plight is that they are ‘permanent residents’ of Jammu-Kashmir only to the extent of being Safai Karamcharis.

Their children have studied up to graduation level but are not eligible to apply for Government jobs. Their children cannot get admission to government-run professional institutes. The educated youth from these Valmiki families are only eligible to be appointed as safai karamcharis only.

The educated Safai-Karamcharis already working in Jammu Municipality now qualify for further promotions. But as they can only be employed as sweepers, there is no hope. These Safai-Karamcharis can vote for Lok Sabha elections, but not for State Assembly or municipality elections.

The colony that was allotted to Safai Karamcharis to live in (Valmiki Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu) has not been regularized till date.

Now questions are:

• Are these the standards of Human rights being claimed?

• Don’t these people and their Children have right to grow and develop?

Gorkhas were employed in all the ranks of army of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh and then Maharaja Gulab Singh. Their families settled in Jammu and Kashmir more than 200 years ago. They are around one lakh people. They have State subject granted by Maharaja but now they are not granted PRC on illogical grounds. This is due to Article 35-A giving State Government free hand to discriminate even the Permanent residents of State.

Now the point is that if Article 35-A was enacted to protect the rights of Permanent Residents of Jammu and Kashmir then how discrimination is being there with said people like women, Valmikis or Gorkhas and many more. If Article 35-A provides a shield to Government of J&K to discriminate the Permanent Residents of Jammu and Kashmir then why it shall not be abrogated with immediate effect. These points need to be given a serious thought to protect the Permanent Residents of J&K from further discrimination.

(The author is J&K based Political

and Strategic Analyst)

Re-introspection

Kr Swarn Kishore Singh , Debating Art 35A "Daily Excelsior" 2/12/2017

For last few months, the debate over Art. 35A is on the rise, some of the big titans declared it ultra vires, some questioned the procedure with which it was introduced and made a part of constitution of India, one even went on to say that it was never part of the Indian constitution, and even disheartening is the manner in which every group is having a claque to cheer the scrimshank behaviour of their guy. These statements find their origins in some sort of desperation of those particular individuals to appease someone at the helm of the affairs and get something in quid pro quo. What is worth mentioning here is that since federalism is part of our basic structure and what is going to be the defining line after which the term federalism is going to be detrimental to the unity of the federation?

As Justice Subba Rao says in his dissenting judgment in case State of West Bengal vs Union of India (1963);

“The future stability of our vast country with its unity in diversity depends upon direct adherence (to) the federal principle, which the fathers of our constitution have so wisely and foresightedly incorporated therein. This court has the constitutional power and the correlative duty; difficult and delicate one to prevent encroachment, either overtly or covertly, by the union on state field or vice versa and thus maintain the balance of the federation.

The US Congress had admitted Oklahoma to statehood on November 16, 1907 after acceptance of a stipulated condition that Guthrie would be its temporary capital till 1913. But after three years i.e. in 1910, legislature of Oklahoma passed a law for removal of Guthrie as state’s capital and keeping Oklahoma City as new capital city. Following this, a suit was filed challenging the law bypassing the stipulated condition for admission to statehood. The question of law was whether the Congress, in its acknowledged discretion to admit new states could impose conditions that would bind the states after its admission. The Supreme Court of USA held with a majority of 7:2 that it could not. The Supreme Court of USA held that the restrictions that the Congress had placed on Oklahoma were invalid further upholding the rights of the state to locate its capital wherever and whenever it decides to. The Supreme Court further read into the American constitution the unwritten understanding of state equality and observed that “the constitutional equality of the states is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the republic was organized. When equality disappears we may remain a free people but the union will not be the Union of the constitution”.

But mind you, the federalism of USA is quite different from Indian system. We here in India are not that strict a federation, here we have Article 3 of Constitution of India which goes on to say that the Parliament may by law can even extinguish a state, leave aside choice of capital or anything and this has been stamped by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Babulal Parate case.

We have got a particular system wherein the spheres of action of both state and centre are clearly defined i.e. centre list, state list & concurrent list; with an Apex Court acting as the watchdog to put a check on the party intruding other’s turf. But when it comes to Jammu & Kashmir, the whole system reverses; to pull in a lot of constitutional definitions & interpretations, historical perspectives, agreements and what not, which makes it more of a case of jumbled threads of sentiments of us Indians than any issue whatsoever.

This whole fiasco has its roots in the fetish of Hari Singh, the last king of the Jammu & Kashmir to stay independent and not to accede to India or Pakistan just because this land was bought by his great grandfather. The indecisiveness to decide between India, Pakistan and then subsequent exploitation of that indecisiveness by the Kashmiri fundamentalist parties and Nehru’s obsession for conservation of friendship with Sheikh Abdullah, Sardar Patel’s passiveness; all these factors finally led to birth of this demon called Article 370 which we are fighting for last 70 years and more.

If only legal aspect is considered and the historical perspective is ignored while discussing Art. 370 & Art. 35A of Constitution of India, then it would be very irresponsible on our part. It goes like, on 20th June, 1949, Hari Singh retired to hand over the throne to his son, Karan Singh. Karan Singh, on 1st May 1951 issued a proclamation for establishment of a state constituent assembly, constituting of representatives of the people, elected through an election process for framing of a constitution for the entire state. The whole process was completed in three months and Karan Singh had a constituent assembly of 75 members with Sheikh Abdullah and his party sweeping the elections completely. Imagine the credibility of the elections, when in 2020’s the Election Commission isn’t able to complete the whole process in three months, how come Karan Singh completed the whole election process, starting from proclamation of elections till the declaration of the results in ninety days. The way elections were conducted and subsequent victory of Sheikh Abdullah bears testimony of degree of friendship between Mr Nehru & Sheikh Abdullah. Infact the magnitude of their friendship of can be estimated by virtue of a letter written to Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, sister of Jawahar Lal Nehru on 10 May, 1950, wherein Mr. Nehru had said; “I am sorry to say that Sheikh Abdullah is behaving in a most irresponsible manner. The most difficult thing in life is what to do with one’s friends”(sic).

After the completion of elections, Mr. Sheikh Abdullah, being supreme leader of the party which had literally swept the elections made the opening speech in which he clearly enumerated the objectives of the assembly. He had said that apart from framing of constitution for the state, the assembly was supposed to come up with its reasoned conclusions regarding the accession and the future of the state. He had even given three alternatives i.e. accession to India, accession to Pakistan or complete independence. The drafting committee comprising of the members of constituent assembly came up with a report which ratified the accession of state of Jammu & Kashmir to India and the same report was adopted by constituent assembly. The constituent assembly finally established the state constitution on 17th November, 1956 & it came into full force on 26th January, 1957.

Then there is section 3 of the constitution of J&K, which says “the state of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the union of India”. Further the proviso which further cements the position and claims of India over J&K is section 147 of constitution of J&K which says” no bill or amendment seeking to make a change in the provisions of section 3 or 5 shall be introduced or moved in either house of the legislature.

Then there is issue of Art. 370; for that I don’t have to say anything but to present a paragraph from an interview of Professor Balraj Madhok published in magazine Organizer in which he had said; ” Nehru sent Abdullah to Dr. Ambedkar to explain to him position and draft an appropriate article for the constitution. Ambedkar was a good friend of mine. He himself told me that after hearing Abdullah patiently, he told him, “Mr. Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights as citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law Minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country”(sic).

And as far as issue of 35A is considered; it is worthwhile to mention here the constitution of India was enforced on 26th of January 1950 & on the same day by exercise of powers vested under the President of India under Art. 370, first constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) order was passed. Since then more than 45 constitutional orders with respect to application of constitution of India to Jammu & Kashmir have been passed but the most tyrannical and draconian of them was Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) order, 1954.

Infact Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) order, 1954 has its roots in another despotic document namely Delhi agreement after which a presidential order after exercising of powers given under Art. 370 was passed.

It is really unbelievable that by virtue of Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) order, 1954, Indian executive passed order wherein Art. 7 & 81 have been changed and by just cursory look at the draft gives us an impression of the tyranny with which that order was passed. Alterations in Art.16 & Art. 19 & omission of Art. 32(3) exhibited the level of insensitivity towards the people of J&K on the part of the then Union Government.

This Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) order, 1954, is nothing but a blot on the constitutionalism itself. Infact the Art. 370 and vesting of residuary powers in state is a licence at the hands of few families in the state to come up with any tyranny against which we have no remedy. This Art. 370 is a tool at the hands of State Government to keep us away from getting into mainstream and whenever we ask the government for some rights which are guaranteed by Constitution of India; we are handed a very lame excuse which is as, “This act doesn’t apply for state of Jammu & Kashmir”. Panchayati elections have been held only twice in last 70 years; there was no Juvenile Justice Act in the last till 2013; this is the real face of 370 for us.

As far as legal aspect is considered; the procedure with which 35A was incorporated in constitution of India is perfectly fine and it is very much given in Art. 370 itself. It is very much part of Constitution of India but only to the extent of its application to Jammu & Kashmir.

But what needs a re-introspection is not the legality of this constitutional order but its constitutionality. We are still ready to protect the people who had left us in 1947, crossed over to Pakistan and never came back but the people who are serving us for last more than 70 years aren’t yet part of us. How come my sister who is equal co-sharer in my dad’s property as is my brother gets alienated the day she is married outside the territory of Jammu & Kashmir? Such laws find more correlation to those of some primitive tribes in Africa who aren’t married outside their tribes just to protect their culture and keep the dilutions away. We are living in 21st century and having such laws is indeed a blot on our democracy and civilization as well.

And then there are two popular political beliefs in the state of Jammu & Kashmir of two major regional political parties i.e. autonomy and self-rule. Unfortunately, autonomy is a concept which has its origin in aspiration of a person who at one point of time aspired to be Prime Minister State of J&K, consequently making J&K alienated from the federation, which is sort of undoing of the instrument of accession and the subsequent resolution of the constituent assembly of the state. But the document of self rule which is so-called framework of another regional political party of the state for resolution of Kashmir issue is even worse. It is nothing but a license for Pakistan to enter the territory of Kashmir and for Kashmir to blackmail India even more. That document is having such utopian ideas that one will die laughing as they are more laughable than thought-provoking.

Just like a coin gets defaced and its engraving gets erased after being in circulation for long time, the Kashmir issue has got denuded of its true issue. Kashmir issue is different issue for different people, and to some people it means no more than a cabinet rank or a shopping mall in Dubai.

It is high time for Government of India to at least stop considering the people of Jammu & Kashmir as lesser beings. The Union Government and the judiciary should atleast treat the people of Jammu & Kashmir at par with the people of Haryana, Bihar, Maharashtra, Kerala or Gujarat. The rights given to the people in these states be bestowed upon us as well. While we, as a nation are boasting that we are a modern civilization and at the same time if we are having a part of the country where the people are still facing this sort of discrimination, isn’t it shameful? Rethink!

(The author is a practising advocate & a political and legal analyst)

Article 370: history

Saamna: Both Nehru, Patel supported Article 370

Ambarish Mishra, July 8, 2019: The Times of India

Shiv Sena’s mouthpiece Saamna has said it was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who got Article 370 inserted into the Constitution in 1949. “It would be seditious to hold Jawaharlal Nehru alone responsible for this; Sardar Patel too should be given the credit for Mission 370,” said Shiv Sena member Sanjay Raut in a signed op-ed in the newspaper on Sunday. Article 370 was a “transitional” status assigned to J&K, Raut said, citing official records.

Raut said it would be wrong to blame Nehru and Patel for incorporating Article 370 into the Constitution. “Times were different, the situation and the country’s capabilities were different as well.... Nehru and Patel did what they then felt was proper for the country,” said Raut. Ally BJP, which has been closing in on Nehru for investing J&K with a special status, may find Raut’s article embarassing, said observers.

How J&K’s special status was ‘diluted’ over the years

August 6, 2019: The Times of India

How J&K’s special status was ‘diluted’ over the years
From: August 6, 2019: The Times of India

How J&K's special status was 'diluted' over the years

NEW DELHI: While Article 370 envisaged that nothing outside of Article 1 and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution would be applicable to J&K, over the years successive governments have extended the bulk of Constitutional Acts and amendments to the state, which arguably achieved the effect of ‘one nation, one constitution’ even before the announcement to override Article 370.

IT STARTED IN 1954

The (now scrapped) presidential order of 1954 that added Article 35A to the Constitution also extended Indian citizenship to permanent residents of J&K, Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to the state and abolished the state’s customs duties.

AN ORDER AT A TIME

After the 1954 order, more than 40 subsequent presidential orders have been issued by successive central governments (as amendments to the original order) to make various provisions of the Indian Constitution applicable to J&K.

ECONOMICS OVER POLITICS

When the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was extended to J&K a week after it was implemented in the rest of the country, it was seen as a blow to the state’s fiscal autonomy and also its special status. However, over the years, the fund transfers from the Centre and implementation of central welfare schemes have made J&K like any other Indian state in some ways. About 70% of the state’s revenue is through central transfers.

AN OLD STORY

The state’s dependence on the Centre for funds is not new. It is reported that J&K got 10% of all central grants to states between 2000 and 2016 despite having just 1% of the country’s population. That amounted to a fund transfer of over Rs 91,000 per person compared with Rs 4,300 for Uttar Pradesh. The grants were also more than a fourth of the central funds given to 11 special category state.

Article 370

What was Article 370 (till July 2019)?

PTI

The Article 370 of Indian Constitution had "temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir" which gave special powers to the state allowing it to have its own Constitution

According to it, the provisions of only Article 1 and Article 370 applied to the state.

If the Centre wanted to extend in the state a central law on subjects included in the Instrument of Accession (IoA) -- Defence, External Affairs and Communications -- it needed "consultation" while for extending laws on remaining subjects, "concurrence" of the state government was mandatory

The IoA signed on October 26, 1947 by the then ruler Raja Hari Singh had mentioned in Clause 5 that accession terms cannot be varied by any amendment of the Act or of Indian Independence Act unless such amendment is accepted by him by a supplementary instrument

Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, which stemmed out of Article 370, gave powers to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly to define permanent residents of the state, their special rights and privileges

The Jammu and Kashmir Constitution adopted on November 17, 1956 defines permanent resident as a person who was a state subject as of May 14, 1954 or has been a resident in the state for 10 years on that date with a legally acquired property.

Non-permanent residents cannot acquire immovable property, get government employment, scholarships or other aid provided by the state government.

The unique Article was inserted in the Constitution through a Presidential order in 1954 instead of an Amendment moved through Parliament

Article 35A does not appear in the main body of the Constitution and is listed in Appendix I

Clause (j) of the Appendix states after Article 35, a new Article 35A shall be added

Article 35A states: Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights ? Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State:

(a) defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or

(b) conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects ?(i) employment under the State Government; (ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State; (iii) settlement in the State;

or (iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part

The premise of this special Article emanates from residency laws issued by the then Maharaja Hari Singh to prevent migration of people from neighbouring Punjab during the British rule

Such restrictions on non-permanent residents to purchase lands are not unique to Jammu and Kashmir as Himachal Pradesh and several North Eastern states too have this provision.

In 2002, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had struck down the provision of women losing their permanent resident status if they married a non-permanent resident. Their children still cannot have succession rights

Article 35A is under challenge in the Supreme Court as it was not added through a Constitutional amendment and other related issues.

Under Article 370 (3): Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:...

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

In the State bank of India vs Santosh Gupta and Other case, the Supreme Court had ruled that Article 370, though was intended to be temporary or transitional, has become a permanent feature of the Constitution for the reasons mentioned in Article 370(3) that says that without recommendations of the State Constituent Assembly, it could not be abrogated

The notification issued by President Ram Nath Kovind abrogating Article 370 on Monday declared: in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression "Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)" shall read "Legislative Assembly of the State".

What did J&K miss out on?

August 9, 2019: The Times of India

Central laws that didn’t apply to Jammu & Kashmir
From: August 9, 2019: The Times of India

Patel dream realised, says PM, rejects Cong claim that he was party to 370

New Delhi:

PM Modi rejected Congress’s claim that the country’s first home minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was party to the decision to guarantee special status to J&K.

In his televised address to the nation, the PM described the legal evisceration of the contentious constitutional provision as fulfilment of the dream of Patel, B R Ambedkar and saffron stalwarts Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Atal Bihari Vajpayee along with crores of patriots.

The composition of the cast was a repudiation of the assertion Congress made about Patel’s support for Article 370 during the debate in Parliament, and was read as a reiteration of Sangh Parivar’s charge about first PM Jawaharlal Nehru being the author of special status for J&K.

Although Modi had issued a series of tweets in different languages to celebrate the government’s success in rendering Article 370 irrelevant and assuage the anxieties of the Valley, Thursday was the first instance when he publicly addressed the landmark change in detail.

During the two days when his government accomplished the crucial feat of securing Parliament’s support for the dream political project of legal evisceration of Article 370, he had kept himself in the background.

Although clearly the main driver of the historical decision, Modi let the spotlight remain almost exclusively on his colleague, home minister Amit Shah, the second most important factor behind the success. This restraint has been interpreted in political circles as a mark of appreciation for the energy Shah put into the project as well as a sign of him being secure of his position after the resounding victory which had turned into a referendum on him. The Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the Kashmir Valley and its horrific manifestation in Pulwama as well as the retaliation by Indian Air Force dominated the elections. However, Modi made only couple of references to the security challenge, focusing instead on development in what was seen as an outreach to the Valley.

SC : only Parliament can take call on Article 370

Neeraj Rohmetra , SC says only Parliament can take call on Article 370 "Daily Excelsior" 1/11/2015

The Supreme Court has ruled that only Parliament can take a call on scrapping Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which accords special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Purshotam Yadav.

A division bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu and comprising Justice Amitava Roy dismissed the petition filed by Yadav ruling that it was only the Parliament that can take the call on Article 370.

The significant ruling by the Supreme Court came only days after Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that Article 370 is a ‘permanent’ provision of the Constitution.

The PIL filed by Purshotam Yadav wanted removal of Article 370 from the Constitution of India that grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

Refusing to entertain the PIL, the Supreme Court said that the court cannot issue such directives. “Will it be done by the Court or by Parliament? Can we ask Parliament to delete a provision from the Constitution? It is not for this court to do so,” the bench observed.

An Andhra Pradesh based lawyer, Yadav argued before the Supreme Court that the issue required interference by the apex court. However, the bench turned down his plea.

“We can strike down a provision if it is unconstitutional but we cannot ask Parliament to remove a provision. It has to be done by them (Parliament),” the bench said and asked Yadav to file a better petition if he intends to pursue this matter any further.

Yadav, in his petition, had requested the court to quash Article 370 and make all laws, which are applicable to other States, also valid for Jammu and Kashmir. The plea also sought direction for removal of the words “except Jammu and Kashmir” from all the pertinent statutes where laws are made applicable to all other States and Union Territories.

According to Yadav, Article 370 and the consequent Presidential Order abridge the Constitutional scheme and also violate Part III, which relates to the fundamental rights of people and comprises the basic structure. He pointed out that Article 370 has been titled as a “temporary provision” that makes it amply clear that it had to go after some time.

Earlier this month, the J&K High Court had observed that notwithstanding its title “temporary provision”, Article 370 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,” the court observed in its judgment on a case challenging the reservation benefit in promotions to the employees.

Noting that Article 35A protected the existing laws of the State, the High Court said that Jammu and Kashmir had retained limited sovereignty while acceding to the Dominion of India, and did not merge with the Dominion of India like the other princely states that signed the Instrument of Accession.

It said that the Constituent Assembly of 1957 was empowered to recommend to the President that Article 370 be declared to cease to be operative or operate only with the exceptions and modifications, but it did not make such a recommendation before its dissolution on January 25, 1957. It had added Article 370 embodied “conceptual framework of relationship” between the Union of India and J&K.

Art 370 confers special status on J&K : DB

Daily Excelsior , Art 370 confers special status on J&K : DB "Daily Excelsior" 18/11/2015

Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today categorically stated that Jammu and Kashmir is enjoying special status under Article 370 of the Constitution of India as such the laws enacted by the Parliament cannot be made applicable without the consent of State Legislature.

These observations were made in a petition filed by one Jagdev Singh seeking expunging of words “except the State of Jammu & Kashmir” from Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 1 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The petitioner submitted that these words are offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the persons residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and appointed to the public services and posts connected with the affairs of the State and for adjudication of their disputes.

After hearing petitioner in person whereas Advocate General Jahangir Iqbal Ganai with Advocate AH Bhat appearing for the State, DB held that State of Jammu and Kashmir is enjoying special status which is conferred under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

“Bearing this in mind, the Parliament while enacting the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has provided that the Act empowering to create the Administrative Tribunal for States is applicable, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, the DB said, adding “the special status conferred under Article 370 of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not in dispute. In such circumstances, the wisdom of the Parliament in excluding the constitution of State Administrative Tribunal in the State of Jammu and Kashmir under the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 cannot be declared as illegal as contended by the petitioner”.

Division Bench further observed that the Central Government employees serving in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 1(2)(a) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court.

“The contention of the petitioner that all other States have constituted the State Administrative Tribunals is also not correct as in some of the States the State Administrative Tribunals have not been constituted to resolve the disputes of the State Government employees. In some other States, particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu, even though the State Administrative Tribunal was created in the year 1988 but due to the defective functioning, the Tribunal was windup and all the cases which were earlier transferred from the High Court to the Tribunal or filed before the Tribunal were re-transferred or transferred to the High Court”, the DB said.

Stating that the contention raised by the petitioner that the employees of Jammu and Kashmir Government are discriminated has no basis, the DB further observed, “the Supreme Court has held that even if the State Administrative Tribunal is created, the orders passed by the Tribunal can be challenged before the High Court at the first instance i.e., before the Division Bench and thereafter only the parties can approach the Supreme Court”.

“Hence the reduction of pendency as pleaded by the petitioner cannot also be achieved”, the DB said while dismissing the PIL.

Article 370 has acquired permanent status: SC

Dhananjay Mahapatra, April 4, 2018: The Times of India

HIGHLIGHTS:

The top court said the Article 370 has acquired permanent status through years of existence, making its abrogation impossible.

The issue has acquired political overtones as there is a sharp divergence between the views of BJP and its partner PDP in J&K.

The Supreme Court said Article 370 of the Constitution, conferring special status on Jammu and Kashmir and limiting the Central government's power to make laws for the state, had acquired permanent status through years of existence, making its abrogation impossible.

The observation came from a bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and R F Nariman on a petition by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha, who sought a declaration that Article 370 was a temporary provision that lapsed with the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly on January 26, 1957. She also sought a declaration that the constitution of J&K was void, inoperative and in breach of the Constitution.

The issue has acquired political overtones as there is a sharp divergence between the views of BJP and its partner PDP in J&K. The discussion also comes at a time when residency laws for J&K under Article 35A of the Constitution have been challenged for denying women marrying outside the state the right of inheritance and restricted employment.

Justice Nariman drew additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta's attention to the SC's 2017 judgment in State Bank of India vs Santosh Gupta case and said the controversy over Article 370 was settled by the court ruling the provision had acquired permanent space in the Constitution and it could no longer be abrogated.

The SC had said since the Constituent Assembly of the state ceased to exist, the President would not be able to fulfil the mandatory provision of getting its recommendation for its abrogation.

Appearing for J&K, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan and additional advocate general M Shoeb Alam refuted the Centre's claim that a similar petition was pending consideration before a bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra. Dhavan said the issue pending consideration related to validity of Article 35(c) of the Constitution and not Article 370.

Mehta said the Centre would study the implication of the 2017 judgment, which was on the applicability of Sarfaesi Act (bank securitisation law) to J&K and come back to the court with its view. The SC granted the Centre three weeks to formulate its response.

Article 370 has acquired permanent status: SC/ 2018

Dhananjay Mahapatra, Article 370 has acquired permanent status: SC, The Times of India

The Supreme Court said Article 370 of the Constitution, conferring special status on Jammu and Kashmir and limiting the Central government’s power to make laws for the state, had acquired permanent status through years of existence, making its abrogation impossible.

The observation came from a bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and R F Nariman on a petition by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha, who sought a declaration that Article 370 was a temporary provision that lapsed with the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly on January 26, 1957. She also sought a declaration that the constitution of J&K was void, inoperative and in breach of the Constitution.

The issue has acquired political overtones as there is a sharp divergence between the views of BJP and its partner PDP in J&K. The discussion also comes at a time when residency laws for J&K under Article 35A of the Constitution have been challenged for denying women marrying outside the state the right of inheritance and restricted employment.

Justice Nariman drew additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta’s attention to the SC’s 2017 judgment in State Bank of India vs Santosh Gupta case and said the controversy over Article 370 was settled by the court ruling the provision had acquired permanent space in the Constitution and it could no longer be abrogated.

The SC had said since the Constituent Assembly of the state ceased to exist, the President would not be able to fulfil the mandatory provision of getting its recommendation for its abrogation.

Appearing for J&K, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan and additional advocate general M Shoeb Alam refuted the Centre’s claim that a similar petition was pending consideration before a bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra. Dhavan said the issue pending consideration related to validity of Article 35(c) of the Constitution and not Article 370. Mehta said the Centre would study the implication of the 2017 judgment, which was on the applicability of Sarfaesi Act (bank securitisation law) to J&K and come back to the court with its view. The SC granted the Centre three weeks to formulate its response.

State flag

2016 Jan: HC stays ruling on hoisting of state flag

The Times of India Jan 02 2016

Saleem Pandit

The Jammu & Kashmir high court on Friday stayed the December order of a single-judge bench directing that the state flag be hoisted alongside the Tricolour on official cars and buildings in line with the J&K constitution.

Justice Hasnain Masoodi had issued the order on a petition challenging the rescinding of a government directive, issued this March, that constitutional heads hoist the two flags together. The order was issued by the PDP-led government, before being cancelled a day later under pressure from ally BJP.

A division bench of the HC, comprising justices B L Bhat and Tashi Rabstan, also stayed Masoodi's comments that the state constitution's sixth amendment in 1965 -replacing the Sadr-e-Riyasat with a governor -was “unconstitutional“, and that Article 370 cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended.

They issued notices to the relevant parties seeking their response in four weeks, after which the bench will hear arguments in the case.

BJP functionary Farooq Khan, a retired IPS officer, had challenged Masoodi's order.Khan's lawyer Sunil Sethi said the division bench's order was a “face-saver for BJP“, whose ministers in the state had refused to use the state flag. The BJP member had argued that no flag could have the same place as the Tricolour.

State Subject law

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.

State Subject law

Does domicile certificate dilute State Subject law ?

K B Jandial , Does domicile certificate dilute State Subject law ? "Daily Excelsior" 4/1/2017

There appears to be no end to controversies in Kashmir that vitiate the peace and tranquility of once called “Paradise on Earth” more often than not. The enemies of peace in almost every situation are no other than the separatists who claim to represent the sentiments of a particular segment of population that sells the unachievable idea of “azadi” and in the process ruin Kashmir’s peace and economy.Mainstream opposition parties too don’t miss opportunities to exploit such public protests to run down the Govt of the day.

After a prolonged turmoil following Burhan Wani’s killing in an encounter that spread over the entire tourist season and working period, Kashmir is again on the threshold of a new phase of disturbances. This time, the issue raised by separatists is the grant of Domicile Certificates to the West Pakistan refugees living in Jammu for the last seven decades without any tangible rights akin to “State Subjects” due the State’s old peculiar law that confers special privileges to them to the exclusion of other Indian citizens. Surprisingly, the 3-time CM and the president of State’s premier and secular party, Dr. Farooq Abdullah too has lent his weight to the separatists on this issue claiming it as “dilution of State Subject law and identity”.

Indeed,the special PRC law is discriminatory in nature but has constitutional protection. Consequently, these refugees have been deprived of basic rights but however,are entitled to rights available to other Indian citizens like jobs that are not under the State Govt and participation in Lok Sabha election.

In the deplorable phase of communal frenzy and bloodbath that marked the birth of two nations in 1947, non-Muslims migrated from Pakistan to different parts of India. Out of about 47 lakhs Hindus and Sikhs who migrated to safer locations in India as refugees, 5764 families mainly from Sialkot, one of the richest cities of West Pakistan, and Shakargarh had entered Jammu. It was Sheikh Abdullah who was then heading the State administration, allowed the refugees to stay in the border villages. Today, their number is 19760 families including 20 Muslims. Barring these families, all other refugees who migrated to other parts of the country have since assimilated into their new homes without carrying any taboo of being ‘refugees’. But this was not so in Jammu where they are ‘alien in their own country’.

Political leaders continued to roll out promises to these unfortunate refugees for their permanent solution but the State laws and Kashmir leadership always came in the way. No political leader in India or J&K had courage to brush aside all these obstructions; legal or political, and do justice to them. Modi during his election campaigns in Jammu in 2014 and 2015 too parroted similar promise to them as also other categories of refugees in the Jammu. The PDP-BJP Agenda for Governance also included this issue for action. It records under heading “Social & Humanitarian Initiatives” that “For the deprived groups, the coalition Government will work out a one-time settlement for refugees from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir of 1947, 1965 & 1971; take measures for sustenance and livelihood of the West Pakistan refugees…”

A pleasant announcement came in early December 2016 that the State Government would issue Domicile Certificates to all these refugees who could not be given Permanent Resident certificates under State laws. Naib Tehsildars were authorized by the State Govt to issue certificates whose format too has been communicated.Even as citizens of India they were facing problems in getting Central Government jobs for want of domicile certificate. The certificate records their original place of residence in Pakistan before migration and the present place of residence. It verifies two facts, one is that the certificate holder is a Displaced Person (DP)from West Pakistan and the second is the present domicile. It is not Permanent Resident Certificate which has its own history and legal requirements.

It was in 1927 when the local people agitated to the Maharaja Hari Singh that Punjabi were coming to J&K to grab major share of jobs and acquire land that deprived the natives of these limited opportunities. Kashmiri Pandits who constituted the major educated class amongst the locals were the worst affected by this trend. To protect the interests of the locals, a State notification bearing No. I-L/84 dated 20th April, 1927 was issued followed by another State Notification No 13/L dated 27th June, 1932 that categorized the residents in Class I, Class II and Class III. This law was allowed to continue even after Independence to protect the interest of the ‘State Subjects’ under Delhi Agreement of 1950 and subsequently by the State and Union Constitutions.

Section 6 of State Constitution defines the Permanent Residents as “(1) Every person who is, or is deemed to be , a citizen of India under the provisions of the Constitution of India shall be a permanent residents of the State, if on the 14th day of May, 1954- (a) he was a State Subject of Class I or of Class II: or (b) having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to that date…”

Section 8 of the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to “make any law defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State,” while Section 9 gives power to legislature to (a) ” defining or altering the definition of the classes of the persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State: (b) conferring on permanent residents any special rights or privileges” (c) regulating or modifying any special rights or privileges enjoyed by the permanent residents”

The State Constitution did not define ‘Permanent Residents’ but referred to the Maharaja’s notifications of 1927 & 1932. These privileges and rights are in gross violation of the fundamental rights of Indian citizens being discriminatory on grounds of place of birth (Art. 15 (1), equality of opportunities for employment (Art. 16 (1), right to acquire, hold and dispose of property ( Art. 19 (1) ( f), and right to reside and settle in any part of India ( Art. 19 (1) ( e).The Govt of India had agreed to protect these special rights of the’State Subject’ but to avoid misunderstanding the words ‘State Subject’ were agreed to be substituted by words ‘Permanent Residents’ even in the State Constitution. With the Constituent Assembly ratifying the Accession on 5th February, 1954, and issuance of Presidential Order on May14, 1954 under Article 370, Part-II of Indian Constitution was extended from May 14, 1954 recognising ‘State Subjects’ as Indian citizens from Jan.26, 1950, but Part-III ( Fundamental rights) extended from the date of issuance of the Order i.e May14, 1954. Consequently, the Constituent Assembly made related provisions for ‘ Permanent Residents’ by inserting Sections 5A to 5F first in the Kashmir Constitution Act of 1939 under which the State was run till the new Constitution of the State was adopted and enforced on Jan 26, 1957.

It is noteworthy that special rights and privileges to ‘Permanent Residents’ under State Constitution are not static and can be ” defined and amended” by the State legislature in terms of the power conferred on it by Sections 8 & 9. So, the Legislature can define ‘Permanent Residents’ to include or exclude any group of people on any exigency. The State had used this power once for granting ‘Permanent Resident’ status to Tibetan Muslims in Kashmir. They were not only settled in a separate Tibetan Colony in Srinagar but also allowed jobs under the Govt. No issue, it was compassionate consideration. But why West Pakistan refugees were deprived of this facility? Is their religion a real problem?

Separatists are fueling the issue of Domicile Certificate to West Pakistan refugees in Jammu by misleading people of Kashmir that it would change the demography of J&K. As per 2011 Census Report, the Muslim population the State was about 68% (85.67 lakh out of total population of 1.25 cr with decadal addition of 17.74 lakh against 5.61 lakh of Hindus),and how can less than 20,000 Hindus and Sikh families living here since 1948 would change the demography? They are motivated by more of communal consideration and not as much of claimed change of demography or any other rationale. Moreover, Domicile Certificate is neither PRC nor the State PRC law changed to bring these DPs in the fold of the State. This is sheer disinformation.

Why the separatists and other mainstream Kashmir centric parties are silent on the increasing presence of Rohingya and Bangladeshi refugees in Jammu? Is their silence because of their being co-religionists?

According to Govt. figures given in the last session of the Assembly, about 13,400 Rohingyas and Bangladeshi refugees are living in Jammu. Bathindi, a Muslim colony in Jammu city, alone housed 686 Rohingyas. This ethnic group, along with thousands of their Muslims was forced to leave their homes after a crackdown on them by the Myanmar junta about five years ago. Despite illegal settlers in Jammu they talk about”Jammu being hundred times better than their native Myanmar as all religious groups live here in harmony”. However, security agencies view them as a security risk in view of Pakistan’s exploitation of vulnerable groups for subversion.

NC is gearing up for bigger ruckus in the budget session of the State Legislature, making it an issue of “dilution of State’s special identity”. But how? It is never explained. While this unlawful settlement of foreigners is going on for last four to five years but both BJP Govt in the Centre and now in the State is maintaining intriguing silence of fast changing demography of the Winter Capital.

Many of the womenfolk amongst them have married the local Muslims and thus legally became ‘State Subjects’ while their relations have bribed their way to get this status through manipulation. Obviously, the separatists and Kashmir based parties don’t view this trend as threat to demographic structure of J&K.Even if the people of Kashmir may not fall in the trap of separatists for another spell of upheaval, the stand taken by them have exposed their communal politics.

Confusion in PRC for discriminating women

Dr Ganesh Malhotra , 90 years of confusion in PRC for discriminating women "Daily Excelsior" 21/4/2017

On 20th April 1927 Maharaja of J&K issued a notification with The Notification No.1-L/84. The definition of State Subject has been sanctioned by His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur vide Private Secretary’s letter No.2354 dated 31 January, 1927 to the Revenue Member of Council. It divided persons into four classes which includes persons born, settled, permanently residing and companies registered with the State.

Subsequently, His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur issued Notification on 27 June 1932 and 14 March, 1939 published in the Government Gazette No.13-L/1989 dated 24 March 1989 to determine the status of Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects in foreign State as to the position of their nationals in the State, that all the emigrants from the Jammu & Kashmir State to the Foreign territories shall be considered State Subject and also the descendents of these emigrants born abroad for two generations.

In 1954 Government of J&K passed PRC law to further define the Permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

Any person who is or is deemed to be the citizen of India under provisions of constitution of India shall be permanent resident of State if on the 14th day of May 1954.

(a) Was a State subject of class I or class II

(b) Having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, he has been ordinarily resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to the date.

(c) Any person who before 14th day of May, 1954 was a state subject of class I or class II having migrated after 1st day of March, 1947 to the territory, now included in Pakistan returns to state for resettlement in the state or for permanent return under the authority of any law by this State legislature shall on such return be given PRC.

State Subject of Class I or II shall have the meaning assigned in the {State Notification No.L/84 dated.20-4-1927 read with State Notification No.13/L dated.27th June 1932.

All the laws framed by Maharaja Hari Singh or subsequent Government were Gender neutral. They defined the Permanent resident not Male permanent resident or female resident. But later on notwithstanding anything in PRC act the concept of “Valid Till Marriage” got introduced in it without any legal sanction.

Up to 2002, the Revenue Department was issuing Permanent Resident Certificates (PRCs) to the female residents of Jammu and Kashmir with the endorsement as “Valid Till Marriage”. This became ground for a petition before the State High Court about 15 years back whereby selection of a doctor was challenged on the plea that she was married to non state subject.

The judgment of Single Judge whereby selection was quashed was challenged in the Division Bench of J&K High Court and keeping in view the involved legal issue a Full Bench comprising of Justice V Jhanji, Justice T Doabia and Justice M Jan was constituted.

The reference before the Full Bench was: “Whether the daughter of a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir marrying a non-permanent resident loses her status as a permanent resident of State, to hold, inherit and acquire immovable property in the State?”

In view of the majority opinion, the Full Bench in a case titled Jammu and Kashmir Versus Dr Sushila Sawhney and Others held that a daughter of a permanent resident marrying a non-permanent resident will not lose the status of permanent resident of State of Jammu and Kashmir. Though the State Government initially filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the verdict of Full Bench of J&K High Court but later withdrew the same after making an opinion that it will carry out necessary amendments in the Act governing issuance of PRCs.

In March 2004, an attempt was made by the PDP-led Coalition Government to bypass the High Court’s landmark judgment. It moved an official Bill after the tough stand of Hon’ble Supreme Court which was passed in a record 6 minutes.

But the Bill was declared “defeated” in the Legislative Council. The main reason was that the bill had created a storm in Jammu and at the national level as anti-women, reactionary and out-dated.

The collapse of the Bill further embittered the tense relations between the NC and PDP, which mutually accused each other of ensuring its collapse. The National Conference expelled its member from the party on charges of hobnobbing with Congress and the PDP to bail out the Government.

But the defeat of the Bill did not deter the Coalition Government. Instead of implementing the High Court verdict, officials in the Revenue Department continued to endorse “valid till marriage” on the State Subject Certificates issued to unmarried daughters of State Subjects.

In Hari Om vs. State of J&K & others (PIL No. 1002/2004 & CMP No. 1089/2004), the Double Bench comprising Justices V.K. Jhanji and Y.P. Nargotra, in its interim judgment on Sept. 24, 2004, ruled: “In the meantime, respondents (State of J&K & others) are directed not to make any endorsement of ‘valid till marriage’ on the State Subject Certificate issued to unmarried daughters of State Subjects”.

The State Government did not implement the interim order, and dismissed the judgment with contempt. On Jan. 27, 2005, Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, issued circular No Rev (LB) 87/74 asking the State Subject Certificate issuing authorities to make endorsement: “The certificate may be reissued after marriage to indicate if the lady has married a State Subject or non-State Subject”.

The petitioner again knocked at the doors of the High Court and sought contempt proceedings against the J&K Government, via PIL (COA (PIL) No. 2/2005). The matter went to the Double Bench comprising Justices V.K. Jhanji and Parmod Kohli. On July 11, 2005, the Bench stayed implementation of the impugned anti-women circular and issued notice to the J&K Government. This had its impact on the J&K Government and on Aug. 2, 2005, it withdrew the circular vide No. Rev/PRC/04-WP. On Aug. 8, 2005, Justices V.K. Jhanji and Y.P. Nargotra ruled: “In view of circular dated 2nd of August, 2005, passed by respondents (read J&K Government), the grievance of the petitioner (read this writer) stands redressed and, therefore, this Public Interest Litigation as well as the contempt petition are disposed of having been rendered in-fructuous. Rule, if any, issued is discharged.”

Thus the J&K High Court on four occasions delivered judgments aimed at ensuring gender equality. The judgments were unambiguous and were hailed by one and all.

Unnecessary confusion has been created to implement the judgement of Hon’ble High Court in Dr Susheela Sawney case and thereafter. After 12 years of Judgement the situation seems to be at the same point.

A lady, who has been married to a non-state subject, approached the office of Governor Office after Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board (JKSSB) refused to recommend her name to the education department for being allowed to join as Teacher.

According to her application, she had got selected as teacher and when she approached SSRB for her recommendation letter, SSRB refused saying that the same cannot be issued since she had married a non-state subject and her state subject certificate was not valid anymore. Peeved at this, the lady approached the office of Governor, pleading him to intervene for getting her issue resolved.

Hon’ble Governor immediately wrote to the state government advising the issue be resolved immediately in the light of the judgment in the case of Dr. Sushila Swahney wherein High Court had said that a woman does not lose her state subject on marrying a non-state subject. But the judgment had remained silent on issue of children of female state subject married to a non-state subject.

The committee has been constituted to examine the case of lady in details besides laying down clear cut guidelines and rules for woman who get married outside the state to non-state subjects. It is believed that the committee would deliberate on the issue of status of the women who marry non-state subjects and then either get widowed or divorced. The committee would also look into the status of the children of these widows and divorcees.

The questions are

1. The guidelines for issuance of Permanent Resident Certificates (PRCs) are clear. They are the same for issuance of PRCs for both males and females. Then why different interpretation for the issuance of females? Are there any separate guidelines for issuance of PRC for Males?

2. The endorsement “Valid Till Marriage” was held ILLEGAL, WRONG and not done in accordance in existence with ANY LAW IN EXISTENCE at the time the JUDGMENT was delivered. So when judgement is clear why so confusion till now?

3. When children of a permanent resident are entitled to get PRC on the basis of PRC parent then why so categorisation of Male PRC parent or female PRC parent. Obviously as permanent resident both male and female enjoy same rights. So the spouse of permanent resident are also entitled to get same rights irrespective of male or female.

The law framed by Maharaja Hari Singh 90 years back in 1927 was clear about State Subject and was Gender neutral and subsequent law of 1932 bestows rights on next two Generations also. Even the PRC act of 1954 talks about permanent resident not male PRC or female PRC then why so unnecessary confusion is being created to discriminate the women of their legitimate rights. This should end to restore all rights available to women under Constitution of India and PRC act as permanent resident.

Constitutional position after revocation of Art 370

2019, August: Art. 370 of India’s Constitution revoked; J&Kashmir bifurcated

August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Jammu & Kashmir- A timeline, July 27, 2019- August 5, 2019
From: August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Govt revokes Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir, bifurcates state into two Union Territories

NEW DELHI: The government on Monday revoked Article 370 + which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir and proposed that the state be bifurcated into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, provoking outrage from the NC and PDP and triumph from leaders of India's ruling BJP.

Meeting a long-held promise of the BJP, Union Home Minister Amit Shah moved a resolution in the Rajya Sabha that Article 370, which allowed Jammu and Kashmir to have its own Constitution, will no longer be applicable.

"The president on the recommendation of Parliament is pleased to declare as from 5th of August 2019, all clauses of the said Article 370 shall cease to be operative... ," stated the resolution moved by the Home minister.

Shah also moved a bill proposing bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir division and Ladakh.

Shah, who introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation bill, said the union territory in Ladakh will have no legislature like Chandigarh. The other union territory of Jammu and Kashmir will have a legislature like Delhi and Puducherry.

As soon as Shah made the announcement, members of the Congress, TMC and DMK squat on the floor of the House, one of the PDP members tore his clothes and then along with another PDP member tore copies of the Constitution, prompting Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu to order that they be physically removed.

When the House met, Naidu said he had used his discretionary powers to waive the requirement of the government to give advance notice and circulate a bill as the issue was of urgent national importance.

Leader of the Opposition and senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad said the entire Kashmir Valley is under curfew and three former chief ministers of the state and political leaders have been placed under house arrest.

He wanted the situation to be discussed first but Naidu allowed Shah to move the resolution.

Shah moved the resolution to abolish Article 370 as well as the state reorganisation bill along with listed bills to extend reservation for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir.

The reorganisation bill provides for formation of union territory of Ladakh without legislature and a separate one for Jammu and Kashmir with legislature.

While Naidu said only the bill for providing reservation is being moved now and the other would be done after it is circulated to members, the House in a voice vote approved the introduction.

Later Naidu allowed Shah to re-introduce the resolution and the reorganisation bill, saying copies have now been circulated to members.

But it was not put to vote and it was not immediately clear if the voice vote taken earlier was for all bills and resolution or only for the bill for reservation.

Shah had moved the resolution and the bills together.

But the introduction was opposed by Congress, TMC and DMK members who along with leaders in the House rushed into the well,

They first shouted slogans and then squatted in the well of the House. Those who squat on the floor included Azad, Congress deputy leader Anand Sharma and TMC leader Derek O'Brien.

Samajwadi Party (SP) members, however, did not join them in the well.

Amid the ruckus, PDP members Nazir Ahmad Laway and Mir Mohammad Fayaz shouted slogans and tore posters. Laway even tore the 'kurta' he was wearing. Later as the protests heated up, the duo tore copies of the Constitution, prompting Naidu to order their eviction.

"The Indian Constitution is supreme. Nobody can do it," Naidu said as he named two members and ordered marshals to physically remove them from the House.

Before the marshals could do that, BJP leader Vijay Goel tried to intervene but was pushed back.

Naidu said the Indian Constitution is supreme and nobody has the right to tear copies of it.

"Tearing the Constitution in the House, shouting against India, will not be allowed. I will not just name (members) but also take action," he said.

Azad said the opposition was not against the reservation bill but wanted the Kashmir situation to be discussed first.

While the Parliamentary Affairs Minister said the government was "rectifying" the historical blunder of imposing Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said there were enough empirical evidence and precedence where the governments have in past circulated and got approved bills on the same day.

Shah said the reservation bill will help provide economically weaker sections 10 per cent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. This reservation will be besides existing reservation for SC, ST and OBC.

Noting that in past 38 times bills have been circulated and passed on the same day, he said this will be "null and void" after the resolution for abolition of Article 370 is approved.

Vaiko said the government was killing democracy.

"Emergency days have come back," he said.

"There is no emergency, only urgency," Naidu remarked.

Azad said Article 370 was integral to Jammu and Kashmir joining India and added that lakhs of security personnel and civilians have lost their lives in the state during 70 years.

"I strongly condemn the act of two or three members of Parliament (to tear copies of Constitution), none were from our party. We stand by the Constitution of India," he said.

He, however, said the BJP has murdered democracy.

Shah retorted that people of Jammu and Kashmir were living in poverty and corruption because of Article 370.

Three families have looted the state for years, he said adding Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India on October 27, 1947 but Article 370 came in 1949.

"It is not true that Jammu and Kashmir joined India because of Article 370," he said.

Article 370 was always temporary and past governments did not remove it because of lack of political will and vote bank politics, he said.

Shah in his resolution said, "...the President, on the recommendation of Parliament, is pleased to declare that, as from 5th of August, 2019, all clauses of the said article 370 shall cease to be operative except clause (1) thereof."

"All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir," it read.

Article 370 of the Constitution granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir whereby provisions of the Constitution which are applicable to other states are not applicable to J&K.

As per this article, except for defence, foreign affairs, finance and communications, Parliament needs the state government's concurrence for applying all other laws.

It was introduced in the Constitution on October 17, 1949.

The announcement, capping days of uncertainty in Jammu and Kashmir, led to an uproar, in the House and outside it too.

India had failed Kashmir in keeping its promises, PDP chief and former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufi said.

She said the government's unilateral decision "to scrap Article 370" is illegal and unconstitutional.

It will make India an occupational force in Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba said on Twitter.

"It will have catastrophic consequences for the subcontinent. GOIs intentions are clear. They want the territory of J&K by terrorising its people. India has failed Kashmir in keeping its promises," Mehbooba, who is under house arrest in Srinagar, said on Twitter.

"Not sure how long I'll be able to communicate. Is this the India we acceded to?" she asked.

National Conference leader Omar Abdullah echoed her outrage, also labelling the government's move "unilateral".

"Government of India (GOI)'s unilateral and shocking decisions today are a total betrayal of the trust that the people of Jammu & Kashmir had reposed in India when the state acceded to it in 1947. The decisions will have far-reaching and dangerous consequences. This is an aggression against people of the State as had been warned by an all-parties meeting in Srinagar yesterday," he said.

The government, he said in a statement, had resorted to "deceit and stealth" to lay the ground for these disastrous decisions.

"Those of us who gave democratic voice to the people of Jammu & Kashmir, are incarcerated as lakhs of armed security personnel have been put on the ground... A long and tough battle lies ahead. We are ready for that," he said.

The mood was triumphant in the BJP quarters.

The government's move on Article 370, said senior party leader Arun Jaitley, is a monumental decision towards national integration. His party colleague Ram Madhav also hailed the decision.

"What a glorious day. Finally the martyrdom of thousands starting with Dr Shyam Prasad Mukherjee for complete integration of J&K into Indian Union is being honoured and the seven decade old demand of the entire nation being realised in front of our eyes; in our lifetime. Ever imagined?" he tweeted moments after Shah's announcement.

Party spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain said the move had opened the path of growth and development for Jammu and Kashmir.

R S S chief Mohan Bhagwat said the government's decisions on Jammu and Kashmir are "brave" and "very necessary" for the interest of the country, including Jammu and Kashmir.

In a joint statement posted on the Twitter handle of the R S S, Bhagwat and his deputy Suresh Joshi said everyone should rise above their interests and political differences, and welcome and support the decision.

Celebrations broke out the Shiv Sena headquarters in Mumbai's Dadar area. Yuva Sena chief Aaditya Thackeray dubbing it as a "moment of pride" and a "historic day" for the country.

The changes that this revocation will bring

August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Article 370 scrapped: What will change in Jammu & Kashmir

NEW DELHI: The government on Monday revoked Article 370 to take away Jammu and Kashmir's special status, and proposed the bifurcation of the state into two union territories — Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh — a bold and far-reaching decision that seeks to redraw the map and future of a region at the centre of a protracted militancy movement.

Fulfilling an electoral promise of the BJP less than 90 days after the Modi 2.0 government took power, Union home minister Amit Shah announced the decision in the Rajya Sabha, which approved both the resolution and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill.

What will change in J&K with revocation of Article 370:-

* Separate constitution

Earlier, Jammu and Kashmir was the only state in the country with its separate constitution as per the provisions mentioned in Article 370, a 'temporary provision' that grants special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir.

Now, the government's decision to revoke Article 370 will revoke the special provision which grants power to J&K to have its own constitution. With the revocation of Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir will adhere to the Constitution of India, much like the rest of the country.

* Right to buy property

Earlier, Article 35A, which is based on Article 370, empowered the J&K legislature to define the state's 'permanent residents' and grant them special rights and privileges.

Now, with the scrapping of Article 370 (and hence Article 35A) people from outside J&K will also be able to to buy property in the state and settle there.

* Law and order

Earlier, law and order was under the control of the state government

Now, following the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories — J&K and Ladakh, the law and order machinery will have to be restructured. The government can structure the power-sharing model on the lines of either Delhi or Puducherry, both union territories. In Delhi, law and order is under the control of the Union government, while in Puducherry, law and order is a state subject.

* Central laws

Earlier, the central government had to seek approval of the state legislature to draft and enact laws.

Now, central laws will automatically apply to the state.

* Separate flag

Earlier, Article 370 granted special permission to J&K to have its own flag along with the national flag.

Now, it will depend upon Parliament to decide if the state can continue having its own flag.

‘How the government has the power to revoke Article 370’

August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Understanding Article 370
From: August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Amit Shah explains how government has power to revoke Article 370

NEW DELHI: Union home minister Amit Shah on Monday announced that Article 370 which grants special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be scrapped.

During his address, the home minister described how the government has the power to revoke Article 370.

Section 3 of Article 370 listed in the Constitution of India states — “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

Thus, Section 3 clearly states that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State is “necessary” for President to issue such notification. There is no Constituent Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir. However, for all practical purposes, state assembly used to function as the Constituent Assembly. But, in case there is no state assembly, the power of the assembly is automatically transferred to Parliament, i.e. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Since the state assembly in J&K was suspended in November last year and governor’s rule was subsequently imposed, it paved the way for the Union government to circumvent the “necessary” clause, which calls for the recommendation of the state assembly for any changes to be made in Article 370, which can mean its revocation also.

In the absence of the state assembly, the Parliament is now directly responsible for all the laws to be amended/implemented in the state. Since there is no functioning assembly in J&K, the Parliament is fully empowered to modify/scrap Article 370, Shah said.

During his address to the Rajya Sabha, the home minister defended his decision to scrap the Article, saying that the previous governments, too, had amended Article 370. “This is not the first time, Congress in 1952 and 1962 amended Article 370 through similar process. So instead of protesting please let me speak and have a discussion, all your doubts and misunderstandings will be cleared, I am ready to answer all your questions,” Shah said.

How govt used Art 370 to remove special status

Rakesh Dwivedi, August 6, 2019: The Times of India

How Modi govt cleverly used Art 370 to remove special status

FOR SOME IT’S A CORRECTION OF A HISTORICAL WRONG, OTHERS FEEL THE WAY THIS WAS DONE IS NOT RIGHT

Article 35A has been scrapped by supersession of the 1954 presidential order and by applying all the provisions of the Constitution to the state of J&K. Article 35A had protected laws of J&K regarding land, scholarships and jobs, favouring state subjects, and the laws could not be questioned on the ground that they violated fundamental rights of non-state subjects and citizens of India. However, this has been achieved by utilising Article 370 and not repealing it. This is an extremely significant politico-constitutional step long overdue and it leads to a fuller integration and assimilation of J&K-like other territories of India.

One can look at this either as a contradiction of the idea of Article 370 being made part of the Constitution in 1950 itself or as a culmination of a process of integration of J&K with India, which began with the Instrument of Accession and was followed by various presidential orders issued in 1954 and thereafter under Article 370. I think there is a continuity. Various presidential orders had diluted the special status of J&K to some extent. However, instead of deleting Article 35A and applying all provisions of the Constitution to J&K when Sadar-e-Riyasat was made governor and prime minister was made chief minister in the 1970s, the Congress governments resorted to talking to separatists, Hurriyat and others who were also tangoing with Pakistan to find a solution to terrorism. The Modi government has chosen to tread a different path and has used Article 370 to apply all provisions of the Constitution to J&K and superseding the 1954 presidential order which results in deletion of Article 35A. Thereby, Article 370 has become fully eroded, and the special status of J&K has eviscerated.

The criticism of some opposition parties including Congress that this is undemocratic and unconstitutional is simply overlooking what Nehru said in Parliament: “Article 370, as the House will remember, is a part of certain transitional provisional arrangements. It is not a permanent part of the Constitution. It is a part so long as it remains so. As a matter of fact, as the HM has pointed out, it has been eroded... I repeat that it is fully integrated... So we feel that this process of gradual erosion of Article 370 is going on. We should allow it to go on. That process is continuing.”

Then home minister Gulzari Lal Nanda said in Lok Sabha on December 4, 1964: “It is Article 370 which provides for the progressive application of the provisions of the Constitution to J&K, Article 370 is neither a wall nor a mountain, but that it is a tunnel. It is through this tunnel that a good deal of traffic has already passed and more will.”

Article 370 confers powers on the President to issue orders with the concurrence of the state government where subject matter is not covered by the Instrument of Accession. Here, the President has obtained the concurrence of the government of J&K. So the order is valid. In the past, the Congress government under Rajiv Gandhi had issued a presidential order with concurrence of the government through the governor of J&K.

An objection was taken that the presidential order amends the Constitution and that it is a serious unconstitutionality. Congress forgets that they added Article 35A to the Constitution by the 1954 presidential order. Were they amending the Constitution? Or is it that now it suits them to say so? Article 370 is a special provision which enables application of provisions of the Constitution with “such exceptions and modifications” as the President by order specifies.

Along with bifurcation of J&K into two UTs under Article 1 of the Constitution, central control over J&K would be complete. Parliament would get power to legislate over all matters subject to the legislative powers left to the J&K legislature — somewhat akin to Delhi. People of India would be able to exercise their fundamental rights in Part 3 of the Constitution in J&K also.

With the concept of state subject coming to an end, the people of J&K and rest of India stand on a par. This should foster equality and fraternity. We expect this political process to stabilise J&K, consolidate Ladakh and eventually lead to development of J&K. This would eliminate vested interests who were exploiting J&K unrest even while encouraging terrorists and separatists. J&K occupies a sensitive position as it is contiguous to China, Afghanistan, Russia and Pakistan. With withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan being worked out, the Modi government has acted with promptitude to consolidate and strengthen the Indian position in J&K.

Th complete text

August 5, 2019: The Times of India

Jammu and Kashmir's special status to end: Full text of resolution to revoke Article 370

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi. the 5th August, 2019

G.S.R .551(E).— the following Order made by the President is published for general information:-

THE CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO JAMMU & KASHMIR) Order, 2019

C.O. 272

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 370 of the Constitution, the President, with the concurrence of the Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir, is pleased to make the following Order:—

1. (1) This Order may be called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.

(2) It shall come into force at once, and shall thereupon supersede the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 as amended from time to time.

2. All the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the exceptions and modifications subject to which they shall so apply shall be as follows:—

To article 367, there shall be added the following clause, namely:—

“(4) For the purposes of this Constitution as it applies in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir—

(a) references to this Constitution or to the provisions thereof shall be construed as references to the Constitution or the provisions thereof as applied in relation to the said State;

(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;

(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers; and

(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression “Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” shall read “Legislative Assembly of the State”.”

RAM NATH KOVIND.

PRESIDENT.