4-Feb-2020: Pakistan Parliament passes resolution asking India to revoke its decision on Kashmir
Pakistan’s Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution expressing unflinching and unwavering support to the Kashmiri people and demanding India to reverse its decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The National Assembly or lower house passed the resolution on the eve of what Pakistan observes as the Kashmir Solidarity Day on February 5 annually.
Tensions between India and Pakistan have spiked since India abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
India’s decision evoked strong reactions from Pakistan, which downgraded diplomatic ties and expelled the Indian envoy. India has categorically told the international community that its move to scrap Article 370 of the Constitution revoking the special status of J&K was an internal matter and has also advised Pakistan to accept the reality.
18-Jul-2017: Centre seeks debate in SC on J&K special status
The Centre has asked the Supreme Court to debate on the special status granted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, saying it was both a sensitive and constitutional matter. The court agreed to schedule the case before a three-judge Bench.
The centre’s response came on a PIL plea filed by a Delhi-based NGO, We the Citizens, contending that the J&K government, given the State’s special autonomous status under Articles 35A and 370, was discriminatory against non-residents as far as government jobs and real estate purchases were concerned.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court had previously ruled that Article 370 assumed a place of permanence in the Constitution and the feature was beyond amendment, repeal or abrogation. The court said Article 35A gave “protection” to existing laws in force in the State. It also observed that the President under Article 370 (1) was conferred with power to extend any provision of the Constitution to the State with such “exceptions and modifications” as may be deemed fit subject to consultation or concurrence with the State government. The High Court said J&K, while acceding to the Dominion of India, retained limited sovereignty and did not merge with it.
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is a ‘temporary provision’ which grants special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir. Under Part XXI of the Constitution of India, which deals with “Temporary, Transitional and Special provisions”, the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been accorded special status under Article 370. All the provisions of the Constitution which are applicable to other states are not applicable to J&K. According to this article, except for defence, foreign affairs, finance and communications, Parliament needs the state government’s concurrence for applying all other laws. Thus the state’s residents live under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to other Indians.
Indian citizens from other states cannot purchase land or property in Jammu & Kashmir. Under Article 370, the Centre has no power to declare financial emergency under Article 360 in the state. It can declare emergency in the state only in case of war or external aggression. The Union government can therefore not declare emergency on grounds of internal disturbance or imminent danger unless it is made at the request or with the concurrence of the state government. Under Article 370 the Indian Parliament cannot increase or reduce the borders of the state.
3-Feb-2020: Rituals vital to Sabarimala temple’s essential practices.
The constitution bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, will be framing issues on a series of petitions, concerning the contradictions between the equal right of women to worship and the right to religious practices. These petitions concern multiple faiths and this would also include the issue of Sabarimala temple’s prohibition of women of menstruating age.
Arguments against state intervention:
- Right to religious practices and beliefs: The right to religious practices and beliefs cannot be made subservient to the right to equality. The concept of “constitutional morality” cannot be used to override religious practices in a society where religion plays a substantial role.
- Essential practices: Rituals, ceremonies, observances, and sacrifices performed by devotees are integral components of the essential practices associated with the temple. Devotees demonstrate their devotion and reverence to the disposition of Lord Shree Ayyappa as a Naishtika Brahmachari by strictly adhering to codes that have been in practice from time immemorial.
- Applicability of Article 14: Codes, which are non-secular, cannot be subjected to the test of Article 14, which talks about the right to equality.
- Institutional morality: People intending to worship at the temple have to subscribe to its “institutional morality”. A person who does not subscribe to the code has no locus standi to call into question the essential practices and customs of the temple.
- The character of the temple: Though the temple in question is of a public character, its essential character is of an unincorporated family temple. Notably, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, does not govern the temple.
- The members of the donor family who consist of the Pandalam royal family, have a right and duty to protect the temple’s age-old rituals.
1-Feb-2020: Death penalty cases: SC admits govt. plea
The Central government has sought from the Supreme Court, ‘victim and society centric’ guidelines to prevent delay in execution.
The SC in its judgment in the Shatrughan Chauhan case in 2014 had issued a series of guidelines. These guidelines had held that unexplained delay in carrying out an execution would lead to the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment. The conviction in the Nirbhaya rape case and the delay in the execution of the convicts as per the verdict, has led to concerns among some sections of the society.
There are concerns regarding the undue delay in the execution of the convicts. The legal process leading finally to the actual execution of the condemned man is susceptible to be misused by the convict to prolong the day of execution. Notably, the delay is a ground for the commutation of the death penalty. The long-winded process and consequent delay undermine the expectation of the victim’s family and society for justice.
The Central government has expressed concerns over the 2014 verdict being more “accused-centric” and has called for a change to appease the victims and society. The government is seeking “additional” guidelines to the ones in the Chauhan verdict to balance the rights of the accused and the victims. The Supreme Court has admitted the government’s plea to issue some “victim and society centric” guidelines to prevent delay in the execution of condemned people in death penalty cases.
The SC has however stated that it would not consider any plea to alter past judgments or existing rights of death row prisoners.