In what can be described as a seminal primer, the Supreme Court in a recent decision has expounded upon the Legislative relationship between State of Jammu & Kashmir and Union of India. The case concerned challenge against a decision of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir which declared Parliament as incompetent to apply the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. According to the High Court the State retained legislative competence and superiority to the extent that it denuded the power of the Parliament. The Supreme Court, exploring the nature and status of the State of Jammu & Kashmir under the Constitutional precincts of India, has expounded upon the extent upto which the State enjoys preferential treatment compared to the other State of India.
In State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta [Civil Appeal No. 12237/2016, decision dated 16.12.2016], the Supreme Court noted a number of contentions put forth to the effect regarding the restrictions on operation of Parliamentary law in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Some of these are noted as under;
- "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."
- "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."
- "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." ... "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."
- SARFAESI Act "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"
Considering these objections, the Supreme Court delineated the legal position on the special status of the State of Jammu & Kashmir inter alia in the following terms;
"10. ... 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. ... 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."
"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. ..."
"13. ... 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."
"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."
18. ... 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.
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-à-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."
40. ... 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. ..."...
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. ...
...
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."
No comments:
Post a Comment