In SC, Sibal says will of the people of J&K not considered at all
‘J&K cannot be converted into a UT’
Srinagar, Aug 08 (KNO): Questioning the abrogation of Article 370 by Union Government, senior Supreme Court lawyer Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said that that will of the people of Jammu & Kashmir was not considered at all.
Appearing before the five judge constitution bench hearing petitions challenging abrogation of the Article 370, Sibal said that people of J&K gave themselves Constitution like the people of India gave Constitution of India to themselves.
As per news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), referring to three presidential orders issued on December 19, 2018, August 05, 2019 and August 6,2019, Sibal said these are all executive acts and the will of the people is not considered at all.
“Can you delete provisions of constitution by an executive act? Can you decimate the constitution by an executive act? Can you change the constitution by an executive act?” he asked.
On December 19, 2018, the President of India while imposing the President’s rule in Jammu & Kashmir had also suspended proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
The proviso makes it compulsory for the president to refer the Bill containing the proposal for re-organisation of a state to the legislature of that state for obtaining its views thereon.
On August 5, 2019, the President of India had issued “The Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 2019” after obtaining concurrence of then Governor Satya Pal Malik.
The amendment made through this order states that the constituent Assembly of the State referred to in Article 370 shall read Legislative Assembly of the State.
On August 6, 2019, the President of India issued a notification, stating that all clauses of Article 370 shall cease to be operative.
Citing Article 3 of the Constitution of India, Sibal argued that Jammu & Kashmir cannot be converted into a UT.
He submitted that conversion of a state into a UT was also against the principles of representative form of government.
“It doesn’t allow extinguishment of a state completely,” he argued—(KNO)
