S.P. ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE is heard on the question of admission. This writ petition has been filed for the following reasons :

(2.) THE UOI be kindly directed to stop providing any funds whether by way of GRANT-IN-AID or in other manner whatsoever, till the State of Jammu and Kashmir agrees to accept and adopt the part VI: and all other provisions of Indian Constitution in full and renders its own Constitution no more operative to bring uniformity between this State of J and K and all other States which had also acceded to BHARAT under similar INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION and equlity between all the States and residents and citizens of INDIA recalling EQUALITY is one of our basic structure of in our Mother-law called Constitution of India as it stands to-day, to ensure that there is no other demand permitted to grow up in BHARAT claiming a separate Constitution and status as was unjustly and unconstitutionally then granted to that State by those in power then doing lot of injustice to other STATES then by this discriminatory action. It be kindly declared that accession to India then made by execution of same Instrument of Accession as was executed by other around 500 States was full and complete and unconditional and cannot be questioned by the residents of the State of J & K and that offer made in the private letter addressed to the then Maharaja was ULTRA VIRES and beyond the authority of the then Governor General Lord Mountbatten and same is the fate of what had been stated before the Security Council as urged above. And such declaration and reliefs be kindly granted on the question of the legality of the manner in which Constitution of India stood enacted and adopted after 15.7.1948 without seeking fresh election of the new Constitutent Assembly to enact a MOTHER-law for free India to meet its aspirations. And , such other reliefs as deemed fit be kindly granted by way of final reliefs and or ad-interim reliefs to meet the ends of justice, even, suo motu and ex-debito justice if they are so deserved."

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner Art. 370 is a temporary provision and on account of non-action of the respondent it has been rendered meaningless. Petitioner has cited several decision of the Supreme Court. In our considered opinion all those decisions are irrelevant and have no bearing on the so called controversy, raised by the petitioner of this petition. After going through the writ petition it appears, that the petitioner has made reckless allegations and is projecting his own interpretation, gone, by history and the past political events. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the commitments made by the politicians at the time of partition. The petition does not involve any breach of Fundamental or Constitutional right.