Article 370

ARTICLE 370 LAWS AND POLITICS While the reputation recognises in oblige 370 the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central goernances policies since 1953 shit entirely lowmined its autonomy. Senior lawyer and semipolitical analyst A. G. NOORANI hash outes both aspects and suggests a focal read out of the mess. I say with all in all reward to our authorship that it incisively does non matter what your geological formation says if the bulk of Kashmir do non unavoidableness it, it testament not go at that place. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and compulsion We have fought the solid fight about Kashmir on the field of involvement (and) in m whatsoever(prenominal) a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, in a higher place all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that defer of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, at long last I say this with all deference to this fantan the decisi on w paralytic be make in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir neither in this fantan, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else, Jawaharlal N ehru say in the Lok Sabha on June 26 and gilded 7, 1952. Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 18, p. 418 and vol. 19 pp. 295-6, appreciateively. From 1953 to 1975, Chief Ministers of that earth had been arousedidates of Delhi. Their identification to that post was legitimised by the implementing of outlying(prenominal)cical and in all rigged elections in which the Congress party led by Delhis nominee was elected by huge majorities. This authoritative description of a blot on our saucer which most overlook was written by B. K. Nehru, who was Governor of Kashmir from 1981 to 1984, in his memoirs create in 1997 (Nice Guys Finish Second pp. 14-5). THOSE who cavil at member 370 of the Indian shaping and the special status of Kashmir extremely ought to remember the special interference meted out to it politi cally. Which separate body politic has been subjected to such(prenominal) debasement an d dis whitethorn? And, why was this d iodine? It was because New Delhi had second thoughts on clause 370. It could not be abrogated legally. It was subvertd to a husk through political parody and constitutional abuse. The current debate is much more than about renovation of expression 370 by erasing the distortions.It is about redressing a moral wrong. The United presence giving medications minimum programme, published on June 5, 1996, state respecting obligate 370 of the personality as well as the wishes of the flock, the problems of Jammu and Kashmir go forth be resolved through self-aggrandizing the people of that fix t he maximum degree of autonomy. fundamental abuse accompanied political fraud. oblige 370 was intended to guaran golf tee Kashmirs autonomy. On December 4, 1964, confederation Home Minister G. L. Nanda state it would be utilise to serve as a tunnel (sic. in t he wall in determine to increase the Cent res agent. The claim was put in a status inferior to that of other coldmings. One illustration suffices to demonstrate that. fantan had to amend the Constitution four whiles, by means of the 59th, 64th, 67th and 68th Constitution Amendments, to perish the hot seats Rule oblige in Punjab on may 11, 1987. For the sound out of Jammu and Kashmir the equal result was accomplished, from 1990 to 1996, by mere executive orders under condition 370. other gross case illustrates the capacity for abuse.On July 30, 1986, the chairwoman make an order under Article 370, extending to Kashmir Article 249 of the Constitution in order to authorize fantan to legislate even on a matter in the carry List on the strength of a Rajya Sabha resolution. Concurrence to this was precondition by the Centres bear appointee, Governor Jagmohan. G. A. L superstar, a former Secretary, Law and parliamentary Affairs, to the situate Government described in K ashmir Times (April 20 , 1995) how the utilisation was d one in a single mean solar day against the Law Secretarys advice and in the absence of a Council of Ministers. The Nehru-Abdullah Agreement in July 1952 (the Delhi Agreement) confirmed that the residual agents of legislation (on matters not mentioned in the responsibility List or the simultaneous List), which Article 248 and Entry 97 ( unification List) confer on the core, w ill not apply to Kashmir. The order of 1986 purported to apply to the State Article 249, which empowers Parliament to legislate even on a matter in the State List if a Rajya Sabha resolution so authorises it by a two-thirds vote. unless it so amend Article 249 in its application to Kashmir as in effect to apply Article 248 instead any matter specify in the resolution, be a matter which is not enumerated in the junction List or in the coinciding List. The pith thus acquired the power to legislate not solitary(prenominal) on all matters in the State List, but others not mentioned in the Union List or the Concurrent List the residuary power. In relation to other States, an amendment to the Constitution would implore a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Parliament plus substantiation by the States (Article 368).For Kashmir, executive orders have sufficed since 1953 and can continue till Doomsday. nowhere else, as far as I can see, is there any cooking author ising the executive politics to make amendments in the Constitution, chair Rajendra Prasad pointed out to superlative Minister Nehru on September 6, 1952. Nowhere else, in the world, indeed. Is this the state of things we wish to perpetuate? Uniquely Ka shmir negotiated the terms of its membership of the Union for five months. Article 370 was adopted by the section manufacture as a result of those parleys.YET, all hell broke loose when the State group adopted, on June 26, a resolution recording its acceptance of the brood of the State Autonomy Committee (the R eport) and asked the Union Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to pack positi ve and effective steps for the work throughation of the same. On July 4, the Union Cabinet said that the resolution was unacceptable would set the clock back and reverse the essential process of harmonising the aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmi r with the integrity of the State a transp arent falsehood, as everyone knows.The States Law Minister, P. L. Handoo, said on June 26 that the people penury nothing more than what they had in 1953. Overworked metaphors (about the clock or the waters of the Jhelum which flowed since) do not answer two crucial questions Can lapse of fourth dimension sanctify patent constitutional abuse? Can it supply legislative competence? If Parliament has legislated over the States on a matter on which it had no power to legislate, under the Constitution, it would be a nullity. Especially if the States people have been protesting meanwhile and their voice was stifled through rigged elections.disfavour of Chief Minister Farooq Abdullahs opportunist politics should not blind one to the constitutional issues. The States Finance Minister, Abdul Rahim Rather, a moving spirit behind the Report, resents suggestions of political timing. The repo rt was primed(p) in the lead the meeting on April 13, 1999. The State Cabinet endorsed its passports and obdurate last April to convene a special session of the gathering to discuss it. The Government of India was once again requested to set up a ministeri al committee in order to initiate a converse on the report. It provides a comprehensive survey of constitutional developments, which is useful in itself for its documentation. It proclivitys 42 orders under Article 370 and gives the following opinion Not all these orders can be objected to. For instance, none can obj ect to feed for control elections to Parliament in 1966 It is the principle that matters. Constitutional limits are t here to be respected, not violated. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir ac ceded to India by an Instrument of entryway on October 26, 1947 in respect of and three subjects defence, foreign personal matters and communications.A register listed precisely 16 topics under these heads plus four others (e lections to Union legislature and the want). Clause 5 said that the Instrument could not be change without the States consent. Clause 7 read Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any forthcoming Constitution of India or fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution. Kashmir was then governed internally by its make Constitution of 1939.The Maharaja make an Order on October 30, 1947 appointing beau Abdullah the channelize of the Emergency Administration, replacing it, on March 5, 1948, with an Interim Government with the swell as base Minister. It was enjoined to conve ne a National collection to regurgitate a Constitution for the State. Negotiations were held on May 15 and 16, 1949 at Vallabhbhai Patels habitation in New Delhi on Kashmirs future set-up. Nehru and Abdullah were present. Foremost among the topics were the framing of a Constitution for the State and the subjects in res pect of which the State should accede to the Union of India. On the first, Nehru recorded in a letter to the Sheikh (on May 18) that both Patel and he agreed that it was a matter for the States component hookup. In regard to (ii) the Jammu and Kas hmir State now hold waters acceded to the Indian Union in respect of three subjects namely, foreign affairs, defence and communications. It will be for the component part Assembly of the State when convened, to determine in respect of which other subjects the State may accede (emphasis added, throughout).Article 370 embodies this basic principle which was reiterated throughout (S. W. J. N. Vol. 11 p. 12). On June 16, 1949, Sheikh Abdullah, Mirza Mammad Afzal rap, Maulana Mohammed Saeed Masoodi and Moti Ram Bagda joined the grammatical constituent Assembly of India. Negotiations began in heartfelt on Article 370 (Article 306. A in the draft). N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar tri ed to reconcile the expirations amidst Patel and Abdullah. A text, agreed on October 16, was moved in the Constituent Assembly the next day, unilaterally altered by Ayyangar. A trivial change, as he admitted in a letter to the Sheikh on October 18. Pa tel confirmed it to Nehru on November 3 on his return from the United States. beseech had withdrawn his amendment after the understanding. Abdullah and he were in the lobby, and rushed to the House when they learnt of the change. In its original form the draft woul d have do the Sheikhs ouster in 1953 impossible. ARTICLE 370 embodies six special provision for Jammu and Kashmir. firstborn, it exempted the State from the edible of the Constitution providing for the governan ce of the States.Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to have its own Constitution within the Indi an Union. Second, Parliaments legislative power over the State was restricted to three subjects defence, external affairs and communications. The President could extend to it other provisions of the Constitution to provide a constitutional framework if they related to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession. For this, totally consultation with the State government was required since the State had already veritable them by the Instrument.But, third, if other constitutional provisions or other Union powers were to be extensive to Kashmir, the prior consonance of the State government was required. The one-fourth feature is that that connective was provisional. It had to be ratified by the States Constituent Assembly. Article 370(2) says clearly If the connective of the Government of the State be given originally the Constituent Assembly for the pu rpose of framing the Const itution of the State is convened, it shall be placed onward such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. The fifth feature is that the State governments authority to give the continuative lasts only till the States Constituent Assembly is convened. It is an interim power. one quantify the Constituent Assembly met, the State government could not give its own concurrence. Still less, after the Assembly met and dispersed. Moreover, the President cannot exercise his power to extend the Indian Constitution to Kashmir indefinitely. The power has to stop at the point the States Constituent Assembly draft ed the States Constitution and decided at long last what accessal subjects to confer on the Union, and what other rovisions of the Constitution of India it should get extended to the State, rather than having their counterparts embodied in the State Const itution itself. Once the States Constituent Assembly had utmostised the scheme and dispersed, the Presidents extending powers ended completely. The sixth special feature, the last step in the process, is that Article 370(3) empowers the President to make an Order abrogating or amending it. But for this besides the recommendation of the States Constituent Assembly shall be necessary forward the President issues such a notification.Article 370 cannot be abrogated or amended by re quarrel to the amending provisions of the Constitution which apply to all the other States namely, Article 368. For, in relation to Kashmir, Article 368 has a proviso which says that no constitutional amend ment shall have effect in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370. That requires the concurrence of the States government and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. Jammu and Kashmir is mentioned among the States of the Union in the First Schedule as Article 1 (2) requires.But Article 370 (1) (c) says The provisions of Article 1 and of this Article shall a pply in relation to that State. Article 1 is thus appl ied to the State through Article 370. What would be the effect of its abrogation, as the Bharatiya Janata Party demands? Ayyangars exposition of Article 370 in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949 is authoritative. We have also agreed that the will of the people through the instrument of the Constituent Assembly will determine the Constitution of the State as wel l as the sphere of Union legal power over the StateYou will remember that several of these clauses provide for the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir State. Now, these relate particularly to matters which are not mentioned in the Ins trument of Accession, and it is one of our commitments to the people and Government of Kashmir that no such additions should be made debar with the consent of the Constituent Assembly which may be called in the State for the purpose of framing its Co nstitution. Ayyangar explained that the provision is made that whe n the Constituent Assembly of the State has met and taken its decision both on the Constitution for the State and on the range of federal jurisdiction over the State, the President may, on the recomm endation of that Constituent Assembly, issue an Order that this Article 306 (370 in the draft) shall either abjure to be operative, or shall be operative only subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified by him. But before he issued an y order of that kind, the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly will be a condition precedent. THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY select Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with Sheikh Abdullah. This unique process of Presidential Orders altering constitutional provisions by a mere executive order ends with the final exam decision of the States Constituent Assembly. Ayyangar repeatedly said that the State governments concurrence merely will not do. That concurrence should be placed before the Constituent Assembly when it meets and the Constituent A ssembly may take whatever decisions it likes on those matters. (Constituent Assembly Debates Vol. 8 pp. 424-427).In 1949, no one k cutting when Kashmirs Constituent Assembly would be elected. Ayyangar therefore said The idea is that even before the Constituent Assembly meets, it may be necessary that certain items which are not included in the Instrument of Access ion would be appropriately added to that list in the Instrument and as this may happen before the Constituent Assembly meets, the only authority from whom we can get consent for the addition is the Government of the State. This was explicitly only for that interim period. Article 370 (1) (b) is clear. The power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to (1) matters in the Union and Concurrent Lists corresponding to the broad heads specified in the Instrument of Accession and (ii) such other matte rs in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State the President may by Order specify. An history delineate the Government of the State. Similar concurrence was required when extending provisions regarding Union instituti ons beyond the agreed ones. But Article 370 (2) stipulated clearly that if that concurrence is given before the Constituent Assembly s convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. Once Kashmirs Constituent Assembly was convened on November 5, 1951, the State Government lost all authority to accord its concurrence to the Union. With the Assemblys public exposure on November 17, 1956, after adopting the Constitution of Jammu and Kas hmir, vanished the only authority which alone could cede (a) more powers to the Union and (b) accept Union institutions other than those specified in the Instrument of Accession. All additions to Union powers since then are unconstitutional.This unders tanding informed decisions skilful until 1957. THE Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution on Nov ember 26, 1949. A day earlier, the ruler of Kashmir made a Proclamation declaring that it shall in so far as it is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, govern the constitutional r elationships in the midst of this State and the contemplated Union of India. Article 370 is more than a provision of that fearful document. It is also a sacred compact with the State. On January 26, 1950, the President made his first Order under Article 370, extending specified provisions of the new Constitution to the State.On April 20, 1951, the ruler made a Proclamation for assemble the States Constituent Assembly. It met on November 5, 1951. Two issues came to the fore. Nehru was eager to secure Kashmirs closer integrating with India the Sheikh to ensure popular go vernance. The Delhi Agreement that followed was announced at a press conference in Delhi on July 24, 1952 by both. This Union-Centre accord had no legal force by itself. Only an Order under Article 370 could confer that after t he Sheikh gave his concu rrence formally.The Sheikh, meanwhile, pressed for an Order to redraft the definition in Article 370 redefining the State government as one headed by an elected Sadar-i-Riyasat (State President) acting on the advice of his Ministers. As for the Sheikhs request, Nehru wrote on July 29, 1952 It is not a perfectly clear matter from the legal point of view how far the President can issue notifications under Article 370 several times. On September 6, 1952, President Rajendra Prasad po inted out the illegality of such a course in a closely reasoned Note. (It is appended to the Report. He questioned the competence of the President to have repeated recourse to the extraordinary powers conferred on him by Article 370. Any provi sion authorising the executive government to make amendments in the Constitution was an incongruity. He endorsed Ayyangars views on the finality of a single Order under Article 370. I have little doubt myself that the intention is that the p ower is to be exercised only once, for then alone would it be possible to determine with clearcutness which particular provisions should be excepted and which modified. The President cogitate The conclusion, therefore, seems to me to be overwhelming that Clause (3) of Article 370 was not intended to be utilize from time to time as occasion required. Nor was it intended to be used without any limit as to time. The correc t view appears to be that recourse is to be had to this clause only when the Constituent Assembly (sic) (Constitution) of the State has been fully framed. That was over on November 17, 1956. But he yielded to Nehrus pressure and made the Order on Novem ber 15, 1952. Events took a tragic course.The Sheikh was dismissed from office and imprisoned on August 9, 1953 (vide the writers article, How and Why Nehru and Abdullah Fell Out Economic and Political weekly January 30, 1999). On May 14, 1954 came a compr ehensive Presidential Order under Article 370. Although i t was purported to have been made with the concurrence of the State government it drew validness from a resolution of the Constituent Assembly on February 15, 1954 which approved adjunct to the State of some provisions of the Constitution of India. The Order sought to implement the Delhi Agreement.The Report makes two valid points. Why the haste since the States Constitution was save to be framed? Besides, the order in some respects went beyon d the Delhi Agreement. It certainly paved the way for more such Orders all with the concurrence of the State Government, each elected moreover in a rigged poll. Ninetyfour of the 97 Entries in the Union List and 26 of the 47 in the Concurrent List were extended to Kashmir as were 260 of the 395 Articles of the Constitution. Worse, the States Constitution was overridden by the Centres orders. Its basic twist was altered.The head of State elected by the State legislature was replaced by a Governor nominated by the Centre. Article 356 (impos ition of Presidents Rule) wa s applied despite provision in the States Constitution for Governors rule ( department 92). This was done on November 21, 1964. On November 24, 1966, the Governor replaced the Sadar-i-Riyasat after the States Constitution had been amended on April 10, 1965 by the 6th Amendment in violation of Section 147 of the Constitution. Section 147 makes itself immune to amendment. But it referred to the Sadar-i-Riyasat and required his assent to constitutional amendments.He was elected by the Assembly Section 27 (2). To replace him by the Centres nominee was to alter the basic structure. Article 370 was used freely not only to amend the Constitution of India but also of the State. On July 23, 1975 an Order was made debarring the State legislature from amending the State Constitution on matters in respect of the Governor, the preference Co mmission and even the composition of the Upper House, the Legislative Council. It would be legitimate to ask how all this could pass muster when there existed a Supreme Court of India.Three cases it decided tell a muddied tale. In Prem Nath Kaul vs State of J, decided in 1959, a Constitution bench consisting of five judges unanimously held that Article 370 (2) shows that the 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 t he relevant temporary provision of Article 370 (1) is made conditional on the final approval by the said Constituent Assembly in the said matters.It referred to Clause 3 and said that the proviso to Clause (3) also emphasises the importance whi ch was attached to the final decision of Constituent Assembly of Kashmir in regard to the relevant matters cover by Article 370. The romance rule that the Constitution-makers were obviously anxious that the said relationship should be finally d etermined by the Constituent Assembly of the State itself . But, in 1968, in Sampat Prakash vs the State of J, another Bench ruled to the contrary without even referring to the 1959 case. Justice M.Hidayatullah sat on both Benches. The judicatory held that Article 370 can still be used to make orders thereunder despite the fact that the States Constituent Assembly had ceased to exist. FOUR BASIC flaws stand out in the judgment. First, the Attorney-General cited Ayyangars speech only on the India-Pakistan war of 1947, the vane with the United Nations and the conditions in the State. On this basis, the court said, in 1968, that the situation that existed when this Article was incorporated in the Constitution has not materially altered, 21 old age later.It treat completely Ayyangars exposition of Article 370 itself fundamentally, that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir al one had the final say. Secondly, it brushed aside Article 370 (2) which lays down this condition, and said that it spoke of concurrence given by the Government of Sta te before the Constituent Assembly was convened and makes no mention at all of the ending of its work or its dissolution. The supreme power of the States Constituent Assembly to sign up any change, or refuse to do so, was clearly indicated. Clause (3) on the cessation of Article 370 makes it clearer still.But the court picked on this clause to hold that since the Assembly had made no recommendation that Article 370 be abrogated, it should continue. It, surely, does not follow that after that body dispersed the Union acquired the power to hive up powers by invoking Article 370 when the decisive ratificatory body was gone. Thirdly, the Supreme Court totally overlooked the fact that on its interpretation, Article 370 can be handle by collusive State and Central Governments to override the States Constitution and reduce the guarantees to naught.Lastly, the court misconstru ed the State Constituent Assemblys recommendation of November 17, 1952, referred to earlier, which merely defi ned in an explanation the Government of the State. To the court this meant that the Assembly had express its agreement to the continued op eration of this Article by making a recommendation that it should be operative with this modification only. It had in fact made no such recommendation. The Explanation said no more than that for the purposes of this Article, the Government of the State means It does not, and indeed, cannot remove the limitations on the Central Governments power to concurrence imposed by Clause (2) namely ratification by the Constituent Assembly. The court laid down no limit whatever whether as regards the time or the content. We must give the widest effect to the meaning of the word modification used in Article 370 (1). The net result of this ruling was to give a carte blanche to the Government of India to extend to Kashmir such of the provisions of the Constitution of India as it pleased.In 1972, in Mohammed Maqbool Damnoo vs the State of J & K, another Bench blew interchange high the tortuous meaning given to the Explanation. It was a definition which had start out otiose. But this Bench also did not refer to the 1959 ruling. Cases there are, albeit rare, when courts have overlooked a precedent. But that is when there is a embarrassment of them. Article 370 gave rise only to three cases. The first was studiously ignored in both that followed. The court found no difference amidst an elected S adar and an appointed Governor. There is no question of such a change being one in the character of that government from a democratic to a non-democratic system. If the Constitution of India is amended to empower the Prime Minister to nominate the Pres ident as Sri Lankas 1972 Constitution did would it make no difference to its democratic character, pray? To this Bench the essential feature of Article 370 (1) (b) and (d) is the exigency of the concurrence of the State Government, not the Consti tuent Assembly. This case was decided before the Supreme Court formulated in 1973 the doctrine of the unamendable basic structure of the Constitution.GIVEN their record, whenever Kashmir is involved, how can anyone ask Kashmiris to welcome Union institutions (such as the Election Commission) with warmth? Sheikh Abdullah had no cards to play when he concluded an Accord with Indira Gandhi and became Chief Minister on February 24, 1975. At the outset, on August 23, 1974, he had written to G. Parthasarathy I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to you that I can assume office only on the basis of the position as it existed on August 8, 1953. legal opinion on the changes since will be deferred until the newly elected Assembly comes into being.On November 13, 1974, G. P. and M. A. Beg signed agreed concl usions Article 370 remained so did the residuary powers of legislation (except in regard to anti-national acts) Constitutional provisions extended with changes can be altered or repealed the State could review Central laws on s pecified topics (we lfare, culture, and so on) counting on the Centres sympathetic consideration a new bar on amendment to the State Constitution regarding the Governor and the E. C. Differences on nomenclature of the Governor and Chief Minister were remitted to the p rincipals.Differences persisted on the E. C. , Article 356 and other points. On November 25, the Sheikh sought a meeting with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Her reply not only expressed doubt on the usefulness of talks but also on his commitment to the b asic features of the States Constitution and to the democratic functioning of the government. Hurt, he wrote back ending the parleys. They met at Pahalgam. An exchange of letters, on February 12, 1975, clinched the deal on the basis of the concur Con clusions.This was a political accord between an individual, however eminent, and the Government, like the Punjab Accord (July 24, 1985) the Assam Accord (August 15, 1985) the Nagaland Accord (November 11, 1975) and the Miz oram Accord (June 30, 1986) e ach between the government and the opposition. It cannot override Article 370 still less sanctify Constitutional abuse. It resile the Sheikh alone and only until 1977. This was explicitly an accord on political cooperation between us, as Indira Gandhi wrote (December 16, 1974).On February 12, 1975, Abdullah recorded that it provided a good basis for my cooperation at the political level. In Parliament on March 3, 1975 she called it a new political understanding. He was made Chief Minister on February 24, backed by the Congress majority in the Assembly and on the understanding of a fresh election soon. Sheikh Abdullahs memoirs Aatish-e-Chinar (Urdu) rec ord her backtracking on the pledge and the Congress perfidy in March 1977 when she lost the Lok Sabha elections. It withdrew realize and staked a claim to form a government. Governors Rule was imposed.The Sheikhs National group discussion won the elections with a resounding majority on the pledge to s ecure Jammu and Kashmirs autonomy, which was also Farooqs pledge in 1996. The 1975 accord had collapsed. It was, I can reveal, base on gross error. The Agreed Conclusions said (Para 3) But provisions of the Constitution already applied to the State of J&K without adaptation or modification are unalterable. This preposterous assertion was made in the tee th of the Sampat Prakash case. One order can always be rescinded by another. All the orders since 1954 can be revoked they are a nullity anyway.Beg was precariously ill and relied on advice which GPs expert had given him. He was one S. Balakr ishnan whom R. Venkataraman refers to as Constitutional Adviser in the Home Ministry in his memoirs. It is no disrespect to point out that issues of such complexity and consequence are for counsels opinion not from a solicitor, still less a administrative official even if he had read the law. Even the Law Secretary would have insisted on the Attorney-Generals opinion. Amazed at what Beg had t old me in May 1975, I pursued the matter and eventually met Balakrishnan in 1987. He confirmed that he had, indeed, given