news details |
|
|
| OUT OF ASSEMBLY | | Legally speaking, is J&K secular? | |
Early Times Special
JAMMU, August 21: The other day, former law minister, Mr Muzaffar Hussain Beigh, questioned the application of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
In one context, he quoted 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India passed by the Parliament in 1976. He seemed to suggest that since 42nd amendment had not been extended to J&K, perhaps the AFSPA cannot be imposed in J&K.
Mr Beigh is a brilliant lawyer who can argue his case at the highest legal fora, including the Supreme Court. During his stewardship of the law ministry of J&K, he helped in the passage of many laws.
Why did Mr Beigh raise doubts about the applicability of AFSPA at this juncture? At one level, he seemed to suggest that the application of AFSPA in J&K has some legal flaw. Or that its application cannot withstand close legal scrutiny but he stopped well short of giving a firm and clear opinion on the issue.
This brings us to another question. Why did Mr Beigh not raise this issue when he himself was the law minister? Why did he not seek legal opinion to check whether AFSPA in its present form could be applied to J&K or not?
Only Mr Beigh can answer these questions.
Last month, Mr Beigh had created a political cataclysm in the state when he levelled an allegation against the Chief Minister, Mr Omar Abdullah. Taking high moral ground, Mr Abdullah had submitted his ``conditional resignation’’ to the Governor, Mr N N Vohra.
The Chief Minister’s action had pushed Mr Beigh on the backfoot.
During discussions on AFSPA, the law minister, Mr Ali Mohammed Sagar, had declared that Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) patron Mufti Mohammed Sayeed had extended the said law to J&K in 1990.
All hell broke loose when PDP chief, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, sought to defend her father’s record. The Speaker, Mr Akbar Lone, refused permission and when Mehbooba persisted, asked his staff to draft a contempt motion against her. Mr Lone relented at the intervention of Mr Harsh Dev Singh, a lawyer legislator.
Let us get back to the 42nd Amendment now. This Constitutional Amendment is perhaps the most controversial amendment, till date. It was brought by Mrs Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, and was a fairly all-inclusive amendment.
Several far-reaching changes were brought into the Indian Constitution by this amendment.
By this amendment, the term of Parliament and legislative assemblies was extended by one year, from five years to six years. The J&K government led by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah had accordingly followed suit.
This step was later nullified by 44th Amendment and throughout the nation, except J&K, the term of Legislative Assemblies reverted to five years.
By 42nd Amendment, the word socialist and secular were added to the Indian Constitution. In case of J&K, this portion of the Central law was not adopted by the state assembly.
Therefore, the word secular does not find mention in the Preamble of the Constitution of J&K.
Can it then be said that since the word ``secular’’ has not been explicitly included in the Preamble of the J&K Constitution, on the pattern of the Indian Constitution, the state of J&K is not secular?
Box in below item,
Incidentally, during 2002 election campaign the Peoples Democratic Party had made more specific employment commitments in its poll campaigns which it refused to own on coming to power. The PDP had promised at least one job to each such family which does not have any member in the government service. Later, while in government, the PDP said, “we meant preference to such families out of available vacancies”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
