New Delhi, Aug. 8 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to give early hearing to a mentioning by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma challenging the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana declining the request and said: "The matter would be placed before the appropriate bench, that is the bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, for listing the matter."
Sharma argued that there was urgency and that Pakistan was going to move the United Nations.
Justice Ramana quipped: "Do you think the UN will stay the Constitutional amendment by India?"
The PIL contends that the Gazette notification regarding Articles 370 and 35A was against the basic spirit of the Constitution and that the government acted in an arbitrary and unconstitutional manner.
The petition claims that the President's order is unconstitutional and the Centre must take the parliamentary route.
Sharma in his plea claimed that his challenge was in the interest of justice and fair play, and also for the protection of the life and liberty of the citizens of the country.
The Centre, through a Gazette notification on Monday, technically read down the Article 370 in the Constitution.
Article 35A has been scrapped by suspension of the 1954 presidential order and all the provisions of the Constitution are now applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.
After the erosion of its distinct identity, Article 370 has been set on a new path to begin a formal association with the laws of the country through various articles in the Constitution and its identity as a Union Territory.
J&K penal law making adultery an offence as declared unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has declared as "unconstitutional" the provision in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), applicable in Jammu and Kashmir, making adultery a criminal offence.
The apex court passed the order while taking into account the September last year judgement delivered by its five-judge Constitution bench which had struck down colonial-era section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which dealt with offence of adultery.
"The entire section (497 of RPC) is, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional," a bench of Justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant said in its August 2 order in which it also quashed the proceedings against a serving Army officer who was accused of having in adulterous relation.
Referring to the judgement delivered by the Constitution bench, the apex court said that section 497 of the RPC was violative of Part III of the Constitution of India.
"The sentence 'In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor', which does not occur in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot stand by itself in view of the fact that the expression used is 'In such case'," the bench said.
"The fact that this statement of law in the Ranbir Penal Code is the exact opposite of the statement of law, so far as the wife is concerned, of that contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is of no consequence," it said.
On September 27 last year, a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court had struck down section 497 of the IPC saying it was unconstitutional, dented the individuality of women and treated them as "chattel of husbands". It, however, had said that adultery should continue to be treated as civil wrong and can be a ground for dissolution of marriage or divorce.
