BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay files PIL in SC challenging Article 370; claims special provision was 'temporary'
The plea has said the special provision was 'temporary' in nature at the time of framing of the Constitution and Article 370 (3) lapsed with the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly on 26 January 1957.
New Delhi: A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Article 370 of the Constitution, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir and limits Parliament's power to make laws concerning the state.
The plea has said the special provision was "temporary" in nature at the time of framing of the Constitution and Article 370 (3) lapsed with the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly on 26 January 1957.
The plea, filed by Delhi BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, also seeks a declaration from the apex court that the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" on grounds, including that it was against the "supremacy of the Constitution of India and contrary to dictum of 'One Nation, One Constitution, One National Anthem and One National Flag'".
"The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is invalid mainly for the reason that the same has not yet got the assent of the President, which is mandatory as per provisions of the Constitution of India," the plea, which may come up for hearing next week, said.
The petition, filed Thursday through advocate RD Upadhyay, claims that the maximum life span of Article 370 was only till the existence of the Constituent Assembly, that was 26 January 1950 when the national document was adopted.
Article 370 is a "temporary provision" with respect to Jammu and Kashmir and restricts the applicability of various provisions of the Constitution by "curtailing" the power of Parliament to make laws on subjects which fall under the Union and Concurrent lists.
Consequently, it allows the state to accord special rights and privileges to the natives, the plea said.
It claimed that the Article empowered the state legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on the grounds of violation of the right to equality of people from other states or any other right under the Constitution.
Attorney-General KK Venugopal, however, defended the validity of the provision but accepted that some guidelines may be needed to curb misuse
A bench of justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said earlier in the day that his continued detention will be in violation of his fundamental right to life
The police said that one of the militants, identified as Fayaz War, was involved in several attacks and killings of civilians and security personnel. He was the last perpetrator of violence in north Kashmir