National moot court memorial competition, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Constitutional Law

Download National moot court memorial competition and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity! KES’ SHRI. JAYANTILAL H. PATEL LAW COLLEGE INTRA-COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023-24 TEAM CODE: T-27 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE COURT ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTTA WRIT PETITION NO. _________ OF 2023 IN THE MATTER OF JAN JAGRUKT & Ors. …………..PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF ARYAVARTTA …………..RESPONDENT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. I List of abbreviations 2 II Index of authorities 3-4 III Statement of jurisdiction 5 IV Statement of facts 6 V Statement of issues 7 VI Summary of arguments 8-10 VII Arguments advanced 11-29 1. Whether the petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartta under Article 32 of the Aryavarttan constitution? 11-12 2. Whether the abrogation of Article 370 is valid with special reference to articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Aryavarttan Constitution? 13-17 3. Whether the method followed to abrogate Article 370 is violative of Articles 356, 367 and 368 of the Aryavarttan Constitution? 18-23 4. Does the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019 violate Article 3 and Part III of Aryavarttan Constitution? 24-26 5. Does abolishment of Article 35A lead to violative of the Basic structure doctrine? 27-29 VIII Prayer for relief 30 1 5 Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1789 1981 SCR (1) 206 6 S.R. Bommai & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1 7. Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1959 AIR 749, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 270 8. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. 1972 AIR 963, 1972 SCR (2) 1014 9. Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1970 AIR 1118, 1970 SCR (2) 365 10. Berubari Union AIR 1960 SC 845, 1960 3 SCR 250 11. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4321 12. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. v. Sushila Sawhney and Ors. AIR 2003 J K 83, 2003 (1) JKJ 35 4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavartta. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition as and by way of Public Interest Litigation and has approached this Hon’ble Court in apprehension of the violation of fundamental rights which inevitably occur due to the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of Aryavartta and enactment of the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner maintains that the jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavartta, which protects the citizens from the violation of their fundamental rights, is applicable in the present case. 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The Union of Aryavartta was previously under British Rule and gained independence in 1947. When Aryavartta gained independence from British rule in 1947 the princely states were given a choice to join either the Dominion of Aryavartta or Rakistan. II. Jaish and Kaish was a princely state located in the northernmost part of Aryavartta, the state has held cultural and geo-political importance. The then ruler of Jaish and Kaish Maharaja Ravi Singh accede to the Union of Aryavartta in October 1947 subject to signing the “Instrument of Accession”. III. The “Instrument of Accession” contained conditions inter alia: that this Instrument will not affect the Sovereignty of the State and that the Parliament was not permitted to make any laws that were applicable to the State of Jaish and Kaish except laws on the subject of Defence, External Affairs, Communications, Elections, Judiciary, etc. IV. When the Constitution was adopted in the year 1950, article 370 was incorporated in the Constitution that granted special autonomous status to Jaish and Kaish. Further Article 35A was inserted into the Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, that granted special rights and privileges to the permanent residents of Jaish and Kaish. V. In June 2018, Governor’s rule was imposed in the State of Jaish and Kaish due to failure of state machinery. After the lapse of six months of Governor’s Rule, under Article 356 of the Aryavarttan Constitution President’s Rule was imposed in December 2018. VI. During this time the President of Aryavartta passed Constitutional Orders which resulted in abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A which violated the constitutional provisions and fundamental rights of the people of Jaish and Kaish. VII. The petitioners including Jan Jagrukt, a non-governmental organisation have filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders of 2019. The Apex Court clubbed all the petitions with the petition of Jan Jagrukt. Hence this Petition. 6 3. WHETHER THE METHOD FOLLOWED TO ABROGATE ARTICLE 370 IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 356, 367 AND 368 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION? The petitioners challenge the method followed to abrogate article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta as “Fraud on the Constitution”. It is asserted that article 370 is a self-contained provision which does not permit abrogation of Article 370. The Union of Aryavartta circumvent this provision, vide C.O. 272, by interpreting “Constituent Assembly” to be read as “Legislative Assembly” under article 367 with respect to the State of Jaish and Kaish. Consequent to C.O. 272 the Union abrogated Article 370 vide C.O. 273. It is strongly asserted that the article 370 does not permit the abrogation of 370 without concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jaish and Kaish. Furthermore, the power under article 356 does not extend to making non- restorative, permanent alterations to the State’s Constitutional status. Thus, the petitioners establish that the Presidential Orders C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 undermined the paramountcy of the will of the people of the State of Jaish and Kaish in determining its’ relationship with the Union of Aryavartta. The petitioners therefore contend that the method followed by the Union of Aryavartta violated articles 356, 367 and 368 of the Aryavarttan Constitution. 4. DOES THE JAISH AND KAISH (REORGANIZATION) ACT, 2019 VIOLATE ARTICLE 3 AND PART III OF ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION? The petitioners challenge the validity of the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 as violative of Article 3 and Part III of the Aryavarttan Constitution. It is firstly asserted that Article 3 of the Aryavarttan Constitution does not envisage the splitting or reduction of a state to two Union Territories, above all it was contrary to the “representative form of government”. Secondly Article 3 requires the consent of the Legislative Assembly to be considered before State boundaries are altered and proclamation under Article 356 cannot substitute that process. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that C.O. 272 restructured the whole constitutional fabric of Jaish and Kaish ultra vires Article 3 which violated the idea of Union of States envisaged under Article 1. Changing the status from State to Union Territory resulted in reduced autonomy and Self-governance. As existence of a State was part of the basic structure 9 of the Constitution, the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganization) Act, 2019 violated fundamental rights of the people of Jaish and Kaish. 5. DOES ABOLISHMENT OF ARTICLE 35A LEAD TO VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE? The petitioners argue that the abrogation of Article 370, which nullified Article 35A, has undermined the fundamental structure of the Aryavarttan Constitution. Article 35A provided special rights to permanent residents of Jaish and Kaish, in line with the Instrument of Accession. It was introduced through a presidential order in 1954, and Jaish and Kaish's Constitution upheld the definition of permanent residents. The petitioners claim that the circumventive elimination of Article 35A without applying the "doctrine of colorable legislation" violates the constitution's basic structure. They challenge the method of abrogating Article 370, asserting it required the Constituent Assembly's concurrence and that Article 356 doesn't allow permanent alterations to the state's constitutional status. 10 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTTA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE ARYAVARTTAN CONSTITUTION? The Petitioners humbly submit that, a) Yes the present petition is maintainable as they have approached this Hon Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavarttan as this Article guarantees the right to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as rightly held by the Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu1 as under: “The jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 32 is an important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India and no act of Parliament can abrogate it or take it away except by way of impermissible erosion of fundamental principles of the constitutional scheme are settled propositions of Indian jurisprudence” b) It has been stated by the Petitioners in the later issues as to how the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners have been infringed exhaustively with substantial testimonials. The abrogation of Article 370 violates Article 14, which mandates equal protection of laws, as it fails to provide equal treatment given the region's unique historical and geopolitical context along with consideration to Instrument of Accession. Furthermore, the revocation infringes Article 19 by not seeking the concurrence of Jaish and Kaish's Legislative Assembly, limiting residents' freedom of expression. This action curtails the right to life and liberty safeguarded under Article 21 due to violations of Articles 14 and 19. Thereby the petitioners are well within the ambit of Article 32 as their basic fundamental rights stand violated. c) Furthermore, as the Petitioners come together to file this Public Interest Litigation, one of the Petition being Jan Jagrukt, an organization working for the welfare of the people. This concept of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was pioneered by the Supreme Court for the sole objective of permitting public spirited persons to initiate litigations for the 1 AIR 2007 SC 861 11 intention of prejudicing a particular person or persons but in the general interest of administration will not validate a law if in fact it results in inequality of treatment. Nor can the constitutionality of a statute depend on the degree of the inequality brought about by the law.” d) In the given case the state of Jaish and Kaish historically being a princely state and in lieu of Aryavartta gaining independence from the british rule these princely states were given discretionary powers to either become a part of Aryavartta or Rakistan or stay independent. As the Ruler of Jaish and Kaish acceded to Aryavartta by signing the Instrument of Accession subject to various condition, such as i.Only in the matters specified in schedules i.e., Defence, External Affairs, Communications and Ancillary the Dominion Legislature shall make laws for the state of Jaish and Kaish. ii.The Dominion Legislature shall not be empowered to make laws authorising compulsory acquisition of laws, etc e)These provisions along with various other similar provisions made in the Instrument of Accession signify the special status provided to the residents of Jaish and Kaish thereby differentiating them as a distinguished Class. f) Also, its Geographical demography which places the state of Jaish and Kaish with an immediate boundary with Rakistan resulting in constant civil unrest since its accession to Aryavartta in 1947 which is relatively quiet uncommon in the remaining part of Aryavartta. This also further distinguishes the residents of this part as a Special Class. g) This differentia thereby has a rational Nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Article 370 and Article 35A which provided special advantages and conveniences to the residents of Jaish and Kaish with the sole objective of protecting the sovereignty subject to partial autonomy of the state as mentioned in both the Instrument of Accession and the Constitution of Jaish and Kaish. h) Thus, The abrogation of Article 370 is violative of Article 14 as the State has defaulted in providing equal protection of laws to the residents of Jaish and Kaish. 2.2 Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are violated by Abrogation of Article 370: 14 a) Article 19 (1) (a) guarantees to all the citizens the right to freedom of Speech and Expression thereby ensuring that the will of the people shall be taken into consideration and they shall be provided with an opportunity to express such will. b) But as the president of Aryavartta while passing the Order, stating that the Special rights and Privileges granted to the residents of Jaish and Kaish were revoked thereby Abrogating Article 370 along with Article 35A and also bifurcating the state into two union territories Jaish and Kaish and Radhak did not consider to seek concurrence of the legislative Assembly of the state of Jaish and Kaish, has failed to take cognizance of the will of the residents of Jaish and Kaish. c) In a democracy like Aryavartta the will of the people is expressed through the members legislative assembly duly elected by the Residents of the state who represent them in the assembly and work for the welfare of the state. As the Presidential order as just without hereby taking Concurrence of the Legislative Assembly of Jaish and Kaish while abrogating Article 370, the right of Freedom of Speech and expression of the Residents of Jaish and Kaish stands Curtailed. 2.3 Abrogation of Article 370 has led to infringement of Article 21: a) The petitioners state that as rightly mentioned above, Articles 14, 19 and 21 have been collectively recognised as a ‘Golden triangle’ of the fundamental rights and are not mutually exclusive but are inter-related and form a fundamental unity. While giving the judgement in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu4 the Supreme Court held that, “Article 31B gives validation based on fictional immunity. In judging the validity of constitutional amendment we have to be guided by the impact test. The basic structure doctrine requires the State to justify the degree of invasion of fundamental rights. Parliament is presumed to legislate compatibly with the fundamental rights and this is where Judicial Review comes in. The greater the invasion into essential freedoms, greater is the need for justification and determination by court whether invasion was necessary and if so to what extent. The degree of invasion is for the Court to decide. Compatibility is one of the species of Judicial Review which is premised on compatibility with rights regarded as fundamental. The power to grant immunity, at will, on fictional basis, without full judicial review, will nullify the entire basic structure doctrine. The golden triangle referred to above is the basic feature of the Constitution as it stands for equality and rule of law.” 4 Supra 1 15 Thereby laying emphasis on the perception of the three articles forming basic structure and being mutually co-related. b) It has also been established in the case Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India5 that a law or action which violates any one of these rights may be subject to judicial review based on the violation of any of the other two rights. It was held that a law depriving a citizen of personal liberty has not only to stand the test of Article 21 but it must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14. c) Similarly giving reverence to these three Article in the case Minerva Mills v. Union of India6, Hon’ble Justice Y. V. Chandrachud , C.J. speaking for the Majority observed, “Three Articles of our Constitution and only three, stand between the heaven of freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awake and the abyss of unrestrained power. They are Articles 14,19 and 21” d) As stated above it has been evidently established that the abrogation of Article 370 has resulted in the infringement of rights and freedoms guaranteed under article 14 and article 19. This clearly demonstrates that infringement of these rights have resulted in the curtailment of Right to life and liberty protected under Article 21 Of the Constitution. 5 AIR 2007 SC 861 6 AIR 1789 1981 SCR (1) 206 16 b) The Constituent Assembly of Jaish and Kaish drafted a Constitution for the State, specifically recognising that Jaish and Kaish was an integral part of the Union. Crucially, the existence of the Constituent Assembly of Jaish and Kaish is recognised in the Scheme of Article 370. Clause (3) of Article 370 provided that any change to the r++elationship between the State of Jaish and Kaish and the Aryavarttan Union, expressed in Article 370, could only be brought about on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly. c) In Prem Nath Kaul v The State of Jammu & Kashmir (1959)8 The Supreme Court held that “Constitution makers attached great importance to the final decision of the Constituent Assembly and the continuance of the exercise of powers conferred on the Parliament and the President by the relevant temporary provisions of Art. 370(1) is made conditional on the final approval by the said Constituent Assembly” The petitioner thus asserts that by circumventing the self-contained provision of Article 370 by way of C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 the Union of Aryavartta has abused the constitutional provisions. 3.3 The Presidential Order C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 undermined the scheme of Article 370. a) It was unconstitutional for the Union to abrogate Article 370, while the State of Jaish and Kaish was under President’s Rule. The first Presidential Order (CO 272) set into motion the abrogation of Article 370 by interpreting the reference to the ‘Constituent Assembly, in Article 370(3) to mean ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’. This then allowed the Union Parliament to recommend the Abrogation of Article 370 via a statutory resolution under Article 370 (3), given the State was under President’s Rule (i.e. the Union Parliament was standing in for the State Legislative Assembly). The said Presidential Orders undermined the scheme of Article 370 by altering the Article 370 and consequentially the federal relationship between the state of Jaish and Kiash and the Union of Aryavarttan. b) In Maqbool Damnoo v State of Jammu and Kashmir (1972)9, This Hon’ble Apex Court upheld a Presidential Order which changed the phrase ‘Sadar-i- riyaasat’ to mean ‘Governor’. The Court upheld this Order only because it viewed the 8 1959 AIR 749, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 270 9 192 AIR 963, 1972 SCR (2) 1014 19 amendment as a mere clarification to a change in nomenclature, as the office of the ‘Sadar-i- Riyasat’ no longer existed. There was no alteration of the constitutional framework. 3.4 The Proviso to Article 370 (3) is crucial, Article 370 cannot be Abrogated without a ‘Constituent Assembly’ a) The impugned Presidential Order (CO 272) inserted clause 4 into Article 367 of the Constitution which stated that ‘Constituent Assembly’ shall mean ‘Legislative Assembly’. Article 367 is only an interpretational clause but CO 272 brings about an a-mendment which is not merely interpretational but a substantive one by extending the powers of a Constituent Assembly to that of the Legislative Assembly. b) The Union of Aryavaratta circumvent the need for the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly for abrogation of Article 370, through the Presidential Order CO 272, by interpreting ‘Constituent Assembly’ as the ‘Legislative Assembly’. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was a ‘condition precedent, for the President of Aryavartta to abrogate Article 370. The Constitutional framers specifically stated that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was imperative for the abrogation of Article 370. When the Constituent Assembly dissolved in 1957, they chose not to repeal Article 370 and hence the power of abrogation dissolved with the dissolution of the State’s Constituent Assembly in 1957. In Sampat Prakash v State of Jammu & Kashmir10, (1968) the Supreme Court held that Article 370 would continue to exist even after the dissolution of Jammu and Kashmir’s constituent Assembly. The judgment relied upon reasons, which were based on Presidential orders passed before the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir came into being (in 1952 and 1954). Thereafter, the Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly gave its concurrence to these orders as well. However, those reasons could not be used later, after the Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, to justify similar Presidential orders. Once the Assembly was no longer there, the Presidential powers were also curtailed. c) In light of the second proviso to Section 147 of the Constitution of Jaish and Kaish could not pass bills that amend the Constitution of Aryavartta as applicable in relation to the State of Jaish and Kaish. The Constituent Assembly of Jaish and Kaish has put such a disability on the Legislative Assembly of the State and hence the State Legislative Assembly did not enjoy 10 (1969) 2 SCR 365: AIR 1970 SC 1118 20 the same powers as the Constituent Assembly. Hence, the Legislative Assembly could not recommend for cessation of Article 370 of the Constitution of Aryavartta. d) Article 370 could not have been effectively amended, so as to alter its inherent character by an amendment to the interpretation clause contained in Article 367 of the Constitution of Aryavartta. The Constituent Assembly and State Government were purposely designated repositories of decision-making power under Article 370 so as to enable the will of the people of the State to be reflected in any change in special status. This cannot be undone by replacing the State Government with an unelected Governor and Constituent Assembly of the State with the legislature, and its absentia (as was the case by way of President’s rule), by Parliament. These steps effectively made the Central government both the giver and recipient of the consent, which is violative of the original provision. The petitioners thus state that the above contentions thus establish the unique status of Jaish and Kaish. Thay clarify that Article 370 could not be abrogated without the concurrence of the people of Kaish. The legislative authority created a delusion that it is acting in compliance with the constitutional provisions but the method adopted by the Union of Aryavartta to abrogate Article 370 was a “Fraud on the Constitution” 21 by the Union. So, states and Union Territories had a different constitutional status. Jaish and Kaish were undoubtedly a part of Aryavartta’s federal structure as it has elevated levels of autonomy. By reducing the state to two Union Territories, the Union breached the federal structure and ‘dual polity’. It took the rights conferred to the people of the state and converted it into a ‘unitary polity’. c) The Presidential proclamation of December 19, 2018 removed the two provisos of Article 3, applicable to Jaish and Kaish was invalid and unconstitutional. The purpose of 356 is to restore democracy, the object of any proclamation under Article 356 can only be to ensure that the government of the state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Aryavarttan Constitution. The Apex Court has recognised that the President’s powers under Article 356 were limited and not absolute in case of S. R. Bommai v Union of India (1994)12. The existence of a state was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Jaish and Kaish could not be considered an exception to this idea, and be stripped of its autonomy and identity as a state. 4.3 The Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 violates fundamental rights Because the right to autonomous self-government and the right to an identity within the federal framework are fundamental rights flowing from the right to life and other provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Their removal in a manner that has made a mockery of the “procedure established by law” is clearly in violation of fundamental rights and ought to be struck down forthwith. Because the Jaish and Kaish (Reorganisation) Act, 2019 violates fundamental rights contained inter-alia in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 4.4 Principle of non-retrogression In Navtej Johar v Union of India13 the court laid down to the principle of non-retrogression, “the State should not take measures or steps that deliberately lead to retrogression on the enjoyment of rights either under the Constitution or otherwise.” It is respectfully submitted that the crucial right at stake here is the right to representation, and to be governed by one’s elected representatives. Consequently, having once achieved the degree of representation 12 Supra 7 13 AIR 2018 SC 4321 24 offered by statehood, the peoples of a state cannot be retrograded to the lesser degree of representation offered by a Union Territory.” ISSUE 5: DOES ABOLISHMENT OF ARTICLE 35A LEAD TO VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE? The Petitioners submit that Yes, as the present action of abrogation of article 370 which in turn nullifies Article 35A has pestered the basic structure of the constitution. a) Article 35A is a unique provision of the constitution of Aryavartta conceived exclusively for the benefit of the State Jaish and Kaish through a presidential order in 1954. Even though the act did not find a place after Article 35 in the Constitution of Aryavartta it can be seen in the appendix i of the same constitution. Thereby Article 35A reads as, “After article 35, the following new article shall be added, namely: 35A. Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights.— Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State,— (a) defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; or (b) conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects— (i) employment under the State Government; (ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State; (iii) settlement in the State; or (iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part.” b) It can thereby be interpreted from the provisions of the article above stated that, Special provisions were provided to the permanent residents of Jaish and kaish, in lieu of subject matters relating to employment under the state, acquisition of immovable property, settlement 25 in the state and right to educational aid provided by the state. Consecutively resulting in an autonomies self-government, which was a core condition of ‘Instrument of Accession’ signed by the ruler of Jaish and Kaish Maharaja Ravi Singh in October 1947. c) Furthermore, an agreement was made between Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru named the Delhi Agreement, 1952 where in the following was agreed: ii. It was agreed between the two Governments that in accordance with Article 5 of the Indian Constitution, persons who have their domicile in Jammu and Kashmir shall be regarded as citizens of India, but the State legislature was given power to make laws for conferring special rights and privileges on the ‘state subjects’ in view of the ‘State Subject Notifications of 1927 and 1932 (Notification No.1-L/84 dated 20-04-1927 and 13/L dated 27-06-1932) Thus, ensuring the special provisions that the Union shall permit the state to make to uphold the sovereignty of the state and the bonafide interests of its permanent members. d) Thereafter in order to ratify the condition to allow the state to maintain special provisions for its permanent residents as it was agreed upon in the Delhi agreement and the Instrument of Succession and in lieu of Article 370 that already existed in the Constitution of Aryavartta, A Presidential Order was passed in 1954 also known as Constitutional Order No.48. which introduced Article 35A. e) Furthermore, Jaish and Kaish's Constitution was framed in 1956. It retained Maharaja Ravi Singh's definition of permanent residents: All persons born or settled within the State before 1911 or after having lawfully acquired immovable property and resident in the State for not less than ten years prior to that date. Similarly, the High Court of Jaish and Kaish in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors vs. Sushila Sawhney and Ors. The Court held that the daughter of a permanent resident marrying a non-permanent resident does not lose her permanent residency. Thus, the State claims that Article 6 of the Jaish and Kaish Constitution does not discriminate against women. And the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution of Jaish and kaish analogous to the Fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavartta. f) The Petitioners thereby contend that the abrogation of article 370 which ultimately led to nullification of Article 35A without application of ‘doctrine of colourable legislation’ which means that ‘what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly’. This circumlocutory 26