The Presidential Orders That Felled A State; Writ Petitions Challenging This Fraud On The Indian Constitution; Praying Justice For Kashmiris

by

Shobha Aggarwal

[This article was first published in Countercurrets.org on 2 September 2019. It is being reproduced 7 years after the State of Jammu and Kashmir was felled on 5 August 2019.]

As we wait with bated breath for real news from Jammu and Kashmir since the total clampdown of 5 August, 2019, a large number of Writ Petitions finally got filed and the Supreme Court belatedly heard these on 28.08.2019. I read those of the petitions uploaded on the web and prepared this brief piece; and added a note on what one perceives to be the kingpin proviso of the President’s Proclamation dated 19.12.2018! Hopefully it should help readers keep abreast of the legal battle ahead.

Part I

All the petitions filed in the Supreme Court were listed before a bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S.A. Bobde &S. Abdul Nazeer and are being detailed herein.

Petitions on Constitutional Challenge

In the first category are the cases which challenge the constitutionality, legality of one or all of the following:

5. Presidential Order O. 272 dated 05.08.2019
6. Presidential Order C.O. 273 dated 06.08.2019

• The Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019, which will come into effect on 31st October, 2019.

These are 8 in number and the details are given below:

S.No.	Case No.	Cause Title
1.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1013/2019	Manohar Lal Sharma Versus Union of India & Another
2.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1048/2019	Shakir Shabir Versus Union of India & Others
3.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1068/2019	Soayib Qureshi Versus Union of India & Others
4.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1037/2019	Mohd. Akbar Lone & Another Versus Union of India & Others
5.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1062/2019	Inder Salim Alias Inder Ji Tickoo & Another Versus Union of India & Others
6.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1099/2019	Shah Faesal & Others Versus Union of India & Another
7.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1070/2019	Radha Kumar & Others Versus Union of India & Another
8.	W.P.(Civil) No. 1104/2019	Muzzafar Iqbal Khan Versus Union of India & Others

Key: W.P. stands for Writ Petition

AW.P.(Civil) No. 1082/2019 titled Farooq Ahmad Dar Versus Union of India & Others has also been filed and was listed with the above petitions but details of the petition are not available.

Interim Relief/Stay Prayed For

In some of the petitions, applications have been filed for interim relief/stay of the operation of the two Presidential Orders and The Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019.

President’s Rule Challenged

In Soayib Qureshi’s petition the constitutional validity of Presidential Order and notification dated 19.12.2018 imposing President’s Rule in Jammu & Kashmir has also been challenged. Dr. Shah Faesal’s petition specifically challenges Para (c)(ii) of the said President’s Proclamation.

In all the above petitions notice has been issued to the Government and they will be heard by a five judge constitution bench in the first week of October, 2019. Many more petitions are expected to be filed once the clampdown is lifted.

Petitions on Freedom of Press

On 10.08.2019 Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times filed a petition for immediate restoration of all modes of communication including mobile, internet and landline services throughout Jammu and Kashmir in order to provide an enabling environment for the media to practice its profession. In this petition notice has been issued which is returnable in seven days. [W.P. (Civil) No. 1031/2019 titled Anuradha Bhasin Versus Union of India & Others]

Release of Political Leaders

In one of the first petitions Congress ideologue, Tehseen Poonawalla has asked for release of political leaders; withdrawal of curfew; restoration of all modes of communication lines. In this petition also notice has been issued. It will be listed along with Anuradha Bhasin’s petition. [W.P. (Civil) No. 1017/2019 titled Tehseen Poonawalla Versus Union of India and Another]

Habeas Corpus to meet parents

In W.P. (Criminal) No. 225/2019 titled Mohammad Aleem Syed versus Union of India the petitioner has been allowed to travel to Jammu & Kashmir; go to Anantnag; meet his parents and after ensuring their welfare, to report back on the next date fixed. He has been directed to file an affidavit of the events that transpire immediately on return from Jammu & Kashmir.

Habeas Corpus to meet friend and colleague

In W.P. (Criminal) No. 229/2019 titled Sitaram Yechury Versus Union of India and Another, the petitioner who is General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) sought the production of Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, a member of the Party and an erstwhile elected member of the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly. Sitaram Yechuryhad complained that in spite of best efforts, he has not been able to enquire about the welfare of his colleague and his attempt to meet him personally by going to the State of Jammu & Kashmir has also not succeeded, as he has been refused entry into the State. He has been permitted by the Supreme Court to travel to Jammu & Kashmir only for the purpose of meeting his friend and colleague party member and for no other purpose. The order specifically states that if the petitioner is found to be indulging in any other act of omission or commission it will be construed to be a violation of the Court’s order. He has also been directed to file an affidavit in the court on his return.

[Both the petitioners in habeas corpus petitions have since visited J & K as per the Supreme Court order.]

Questionable Petitions

The first petition to be filed on the issue was by Manohar Lal Sharma on 6th August itself. When this petition came up for hearing (I was present in court at that time), the Chief Justice reprimanded the petitioner and told him why he filed such a badly drafted petition in such a serious matter. He however declined to dismiss the petition even on technical grounds saying it will affect other pending petitions. The downside is that whatever judgement is passed in these writ petitions the case title will be Manohar Lal Sharma Versus Union of India & Another!

There is one more petition which is filed by Vineet Dhanda. Not much information is available on this petition except as per media reports it is a “pro-government” petition. Both Vineet Dhanda and Manohar Lal Sharma keep filing lots of PILs in the Supreme Court!!

Part II

A lot has been written on the Presidential Order C.O. 272; Presidential Order C.O. 273 and The Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019. But the precursor of all this was the Proclamation by the President of India vide G.S.R. 1223(E) dated 19th December, 2018 imposing President’s rule in Jammu & Kashmir which was extended on 03.07.2019. Para (c)(ii) of the said Proclamation inter alia stated:

“the operation of the following provisions of the Constitution and of the State Constitution is hereby suspended, namely:–– “So much of the first proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution as relates to the reference by the President to the Legislature of the State and the second proviso to that article; …” [Emphasis provided]

First Proviso to Article 3

Article 3 of the Constitution of India relates to “Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States.” First Proviso to Article 3 states:

“Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States [***], the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.” [Emphasis provided]

Second Proviso to Article 3

The second proviso in the President’s Proclamation of 19.12.2018 refers to The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, C.O. 48 which adds the following proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution of India:

“Provided further that no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State.” [Emphasis provided]

The Kingpin Provision

As earlier proclamations imposing President’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir included similar provisions, suspension of these did not invite any scrutiny this time also. Para (c)(ii) of the Proclamation remained unchallenged in a court of law all these months. But it is the kingpin provision which formed the basis of The Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019 as the requirement of both the reference by the President to the legislative assembly of the State in first Proviso and the consent ofthe Legislature of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the second Proviso were suspended. The conspiracy to do what got done in the first week of August, 2019 was hatched at least nine months back; the government laboured hard to keep it a secret; and then dropped the bombshell. With hindsight one wonders what if the validity of Para (c)(ii) of the Proclamation had been challenged in the Supreme Court earlier? Could it have back-footed the Government? Could it have helped change the course of events in August, 2019?

Also At: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/the-presidential-orders-that-felled-a-state-writ-petitions-challenging-this-fraud-on-the-indian-constitution-praying-justice-for-kashmiris

PIL Watch Group is on X (Twitter)

 

PIL Watch Group is on X (Twitter). Visit our twitter handle @pilwatchgroup (https://x.com/pilwatchgroup) for our views on latest political developments. We have till date 8606 posts in all.

Contacting AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA)

 

PIL Watch Group and AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA) are sister organizations. You may like to visit ABVA’s blog at:

https://aidsbhedbhavvirodhiandolan.blogspot.com/

 

Also visit ABVA’s Instagram handle (started on 29 May 2026):

@aidsbhedbhavvirodhiandolan

 

ABVA’s twitter account stands suspended ostensibly at the instance of Elon Musk.

12 QUESTIONS TO U.S. PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP FROM INDIANS

 

Sir,

This is with reference to the denigration of Indians in general and their duly elected leaders in particular:

1. Language used by you in your Truth Social posts shows that your family set-up, education, work place failed to inculcate civility in your spoken language. What do you say?

2. You have called us as ‘laptop gangsters’. Why then are your MNCs recruiting Indians with IT degrees in highest posts?

3. You refer to our motherland as hellhole. Have you thought what the Nativists think about you and your ancestors who took away their land by force?

4. You refer to Indians as bringing their families to US through subterfuge. Does the family system exist among the whites in US or is it all but broken?

5. If you have ever read global history the whites colonized 2/3rds of the world and raised families there including marriage with locals. The locals never took umbrage. Why should you get bothered now?

6. US has taken the benefit of getting readymade doctors, engineers, IT experts, nurses without spending a penny on their education which they received in India. You recruit them as of use to your economy and pay them pittance and make them face racial discrimination. Is the US establishment not into gangsterism?

7. About 15 months earlier you had sent plane-loads of Indians handcuffed, half starved, allegedly on grounds that they were illegal immigrants. Don’t you dare to repeat what you did at that time? This action of yours violated national, international laws.

8. You badly need the services of a psychiatrist to assess your mental health. Are you prepared for that? Else under US state laws restraint can be used to get you to a psychiatric institution for a check-up and for which no court order is needed.

9. You have denigrated progress of Indian economy by calling it ‘dead-economy’ but which is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Do you understand you are making a laughing stock of US presidency?

10. Do you understand that your present action at Hormuz has destabilized global economy?

11. Would you kindly forget about using nuclear bomb which could threaten countries in the middle east right up to the shores of India?

12. While you should feel free to deal with both Pope and Christ as you like, please show restraint in referring to leaders of India and Indians. Could you honestly inform the world why you are dodging appearance in Epstein files enquiry by Senate House Committee?

India like Iran and China are ancient civilizations about which you need to read up so that you show respect that is due to ancient civilizations.

Thanks.

PIL Watch Group

 

T

Open letter to President Donald Trump

Sir,

Media reports in India indicate certain comments attributable to you and which project India, Indians in bad light. Your choice of words leaves much to desire. Is this really the assessment you have about us Indians?

Thanks,

P.S. Sahni & Shobha Aggarwal

PRESS RELEASE: Supreme Court Seeks Union Government’s Response on Plea Challenging Non-Enforcement of Delhi Rent Act, 1995 for three decades

 

A Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi on Monday, 9 March 2026 directed the Union of India to file its counter affidavit in a writ petition challenging the continued non-enforcement of the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (“1995 Act”) for nearly three decades.

The Court granted the Union Government four weeks to file its counter affidavit. The petitioner has been permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. Earlier, on 7 January 2026, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union Government in the matter.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned the Government on why the Act has not been notified. The Government counsel sought time to file counter, stating that the matter had come up for hearing for the first time.

The Government also raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court directly instead of first moving the High Court.

Responding to the objection, the petitioner, Ms. Shobha Aggarwal, who is appearing in person, pointed out that in Common Cause v. Union of India (Judgement dated 8 October 2003), the Supreme Court had declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. In light of that decision, she argued, the High Court would likely have dismissed the petition at the threshold.

The matter will be taken up after the completion of pleadings.

The petition raises an important constitutional question: whether a law duly enacted by Parliament can be kept in abeyance indefinitely – in the instant case for over thirty years – without being brought into force?

Case details:

Writ Petition Civil No. 1177/2025 titled Shobha Aggarwal Vs. Union of India

SC plea questions 30-year old delay in executing Delhi Rent Act of 1995

 

(HT, 14.1.26)

Supreme Court issues Notice to Central Government to explain 30-yr delay by the Executive in Notifying Delhi Rent Act, 1995 despite Presidential approval.

NDH 9.3.26.

Case title: Shobha Aggarwal vs. UOI.

This is not a PIL but a writ petition

Owners welcome SC order