Supreme Court

30.03.1961

Puranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India and Ors.

MANU/SC/0217/1961

Article 370 allows amendments without breaking applicability of the Act

Though the Supreme Court may feel embattled by the recent influx of cases birthed under the auspices of Article 370 of the Constitution – challenging it, reinforcing it or simply beefing up a brawl – it is but a continuation of the divisiveness. In 1961 the Supreme Court had faced a challenge against a Presidential Order by which six representatives to the State’s Legislative Assembly were to be appointed by the President. It parried arguments that a ‘modification’, such as the one effected by the Order, was so radical a transformation that the law would no longer apply to the State under Article 370(1). Instead, it concluded that read in the widest possible meaning, ‘modifications’ would include far-reaching amendments to an Act.

Lonesome did seem its battle, when, in 1968, following a similar approach in its decision on a dispute arising from the rejection of a candidate’s nomination paper desirous of standing for election to the legislative assembly, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had nonetheless opined that the “Constitution of India does not recognize the accession of Kashmir with India as final because of Article 370”. Given that, its recent words, “Article 370 can neither be repealed nor abrogated” being a “permanent provision”, seem more friendly overture than protectionist repeal.

Relevant

S.L. Saraf v. M.S. Qureshi and Anr. MANU/JK/0026/1968

Tags : Article 370 Kashmir amendment

Share :