PETITIONER:
BACHAN LAL KALGOTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1987
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
NATRAJAN, S. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1169 1987 SCR (2) 369
1987 SCC (2) 223 JT 1987 (1) 520
1987 SCALE (1)385
ACT:
Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir: S. 6 Constitution of
India: Article 35A.
Jammu & Kashmir Resettlement Act, 1982--Validity of-
Refugees from West Pakistan--Citizens of India--Domiciled in
J & K State for forty years--Denied permanent resident
status, and basic rights of citizenship--Right to acquire
immovable property in the State, right to employment under
the State, right to higher technical education and right to
be elected to the State Assembly and local bodies Permissi-
bility of.
HEADNOTE:
The refugees from West Pakistan who had migrated into
the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 and had been domi-
ciled in that State for nearly forty years are not permanent
residents as defined in s.6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consti-
tution, with the result that they were disentitled to be
included in the electoral rolls of the State Assembly, to be
elected to village Panchayats, to be appointed to any serv-
ice under the State Government by direct recruitment, to
purchase land in the State and to be admitted to higher
technical educational institutions under the relevant Acts
and Rules. Section 6(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitu-
tion, however, provides that permanent State subjects who
had migrated to West Pakistan in 1947 shah be permanent
residents of the State on their return to the State under a
permit for resettlement, thereby entitling them to all the
above rights.
The petitioner, who claimed to speak on behalf of the
refugees from West Pakistan settled in the State, claimed
that be and other persons situated like him should at least
be given the same rights as are given to those who had
voluntarily migrated to West Pakistan at the time of parti-
tion in 1947, on their return to the State for resettlement.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court,
HELD: Section 12(1)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Repre-
sentation of the People, Act 1957 disqualifying a person for
registration in an
370
electoral roll if he is not a permanent resident of the
State as defined in s.6 of the Constitution, s.8(a) of the
Village Panchayat Act, 1958 disqualifying such a person for
being chosen as or for being member of a Panchayat, s.4 of
the Land Alienation Act, 1995 B.K. prohibiting transfer of
land in favour of any person who is not a State subject, and
r.17(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classifica-
tion, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 rendering ineligible a
person who is not a hereditary State subject for appointment
to any service under the State Government by direct recruit-
ment are not open to challenge as inconsistent with the
rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India
because of the "Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kash-
mir) Order, 1954" issued by the President of India under
Art. 370(1)(d) of the Constitution, by which Art. 35A was
added to the Constitution in relation to the State of Jammu
and Kashmir. [374B-E]
The petitioner and those like him have a justifiable
grievance. They have very anomalous rights within the State.
Though citizens of India and entitled to the various funda-
mental rights guaranteed by the Constitution they are not in
a position to enjoy many of those rights within that State
in which they are domiciled for nearly 40 years. In view of
the peculiar constitutional position obtaining in the State,
it is upto the legislature of the State to take action to
suitably amend legislations, and for the State Government to
amend Service Rules and issue appropriate executive instruc-
tions to make these persons eligible to exercise greater
rights of citizenship. They constitute nearly seven to eight
per cent of the population of the State. Surely, they are
entitled to expect to be protected by the State. [376A-C]
The Union of India, in the peculiar context of the State
also owes an obligation to make some provision for the
advancement of cultural, economic and educational rights of
these persons. [376B]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7698 of
1982.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
M.S. Ganesh, (Amicus Curiae) for the Petitioner.
K. Parasaran, Attorney General, Altar Ahmed, Adv. Genl.,
S.K. Bhattacharya, Ms. A. Subhashini and H.C. Paonam for the
Respondents.
371
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The petitioner is the Chairman of
the Action Committee of West Pakistani Refugees. He migrated
from West Pakistan to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in India
in 1947 in the wake of the partition of the country. He
claims to speak on behalf of the refugees from West Pakistan
who migrated and settled in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He
contends that notwithstanding the fact that it is almost
four decades since they migrated and settled down in the
State of Jammu & Kashmir, they are denied many basic rights
which other Indian citizens have in other parts of the
country, such as, the right to acquire any immovable proper-
ty in the State, the right to employment under the State,
the right to start an industry, the right to purchase trans-
port vehicles, the right to higher technical education, the
right to be elected to the State Assembly or a local body,
etc. He complains that while refugees from West Pakistan who
migrated into the State of Jammu & Kashmir in 1947 and have
settled down in the State are denied these rights, recently
the Jammu & Kashmir Legislature has enacted the Resettlement
Act, 1982 by which all these rights are given to erstwhile
residents of Jammu & Kashmir who had voluntarily migrated to
West Pakistan at the time of the partition of the country in
1947 and their children, who may now choose to return to
Jammu & Kashmir. The present writ petition was initially
filed challenging the vires of the Resettlement Act, 1982.
The vires of the Act is already awaiting the decision of
this court in special reference No. 1 of 1982. The petition-
er, therefore, gave up the challenge to the vires of the Act
in this petition leaving the question to be decided in
special reference no. 1 of 1982. For the purposes of this
petition, he now proceeds on the basis that the Act is valid
but claims that he and other persons situated like him
should at least be given the same rights as are given to
those who voluntarily migrated to est Pakistan at the time
of the partition in 1947.
It is true that the persons in the position of the
petitioner who migrated from West Pakistan to the State of
Jammu & Kashmir in the wake of the 1947 partition and have
settled down in the State in Jammu & Kashmir and who are
citizens of India and who also have the right to participate
in elections to Parliament, have very anomalous rights
within the State. For example, they are not entitled to be
included in the electoral roll of the State Assembly, they
are not entitled to be elected to a village panchayat, they
are not entitled to purchase any land and they are also not
entitled to be appointed to any service under the State
Government. All these denials and deprivations are
372
the consequence of the definition of a ‘permanent resident’
under sec.6 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution. Sec. 6 is
as follows:
“Permanent residents–(1) Every person who is,
or is deemed to be, a citizen of India under
the provisions of the Constitution of India
shall be a permanent resident of the State, if
on the fourteenth day of May, 1954–
(a) he was a State Subject of Class I or of
Class II; or
(b) having lawfully acquired immovable proper-
ty in the State, he has been ordinarily resi-
dent in the State for not less than ten years
prior to that date.
(2) Any person who, before the fourteenth day
of May, 1954, was a State Subject of Class I
or of Class II and who having migrated after
the first day of March, 1947, to the territory
now included in Pakistan, returns to the State
under a permit for resettlement in the State
or for permanent return issued by or under the
authority of any law made by the State Legis-
lature shall on such return be a permanent
resident of the State.
(3) In this section, the expression “State
Subject of Class I or of Class II” shall have
the same meaning as in (State Notification No.
1-L/84 dated the twentieth April, 1927, read
with State Notification No. 13/L dated the
twentyseventh June, 1932.)”
The 1927 Notification defining State Subject is as follows:
“The term State Subject means and includes–
Class I.–All persons born and residing within
the State before the commencement of the reign
of His Highness the late Maharaja Ghulab Singh
Sahib Bahadur, and also persons who settled
therein before the commencement of Samvat year
1942, and have since been permanently residing
therein.
Class II.–All persons other than those be-
longing to Class I who settled within the
State before the close of Samvat year 1968,
and have since permanently resided and ac-
quired immovable property therein.
373
Class III–All persons, other than those
belonging to Classes I and II permanently
residing within the State, who have acquired
under a rayatnama any immovable property
therein or who may hereafter acquire such
property under an ijazatnama and may execute a
rayatnama after ten years continuous residence
therein.
Class IV.–Companies which have been regis-
tered as such within the State and which,
being companies in which the Government are
financially interested or as to the economic
benefit to the State or to the financial
stability of which the Government are satis-
fied, have by a special order of His Highness
been declared to be State Subjects.
Note 1 –In matters of grants of the State
scholarships, State lands for agricultural and
house building purposes and recruitment to
State service, State Subjects of Class I
should receive preference over other classes
and those of Class II, over Class III, sub-
ject, however, to the Order dated 31st Janu-
ary, 1927 of His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur
regarding employment of hereditary State
subjects in Government service.
Note II.–The descendants of the persons who
have secured the status of any class of the
State Subjects will be entitled to become the
State Subjects of the same class. For example,
if A is declared a State Subject of Class II
his sons and grandsons will ipso facto acquire
the status of the same class (II) and not of
Class I.
Note III.–The wife or a widow of a State
Subject of any class shall acquire the status
of her husband as State Subject of the same
class as her husband, so long as she resides
in the State and does not leave the State for
permanent residence outside the State.
Note IV.–For the purposes of the interpreta-
tion of the term ‘State Subject’ either with
reference to any law for the time being in
force or otherwise, the definition given in
this Notification as amended up to date shall
be read as if such amended definition existed
in this Notification as originally issued.”
374
There is no dispute that the petitioner and others like
him are not ‘permanent residents’ of Jammu & Kashmir within
the meaning of sec.6 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution. It
is because they are not permanent residents as defined by
sec.6 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, they do not have
the rights and privileges mentioned earlier. Sec. 12(b) of
the Jammu & Kashmir Representation of the People Act pro-
vides that a person shall be disqualified for registration
in an electoral roll if he is not a permanent resident of
the State as defined in Part III of the Constitution,
sec.8(a) of the Villages Panchayat Act provides that a
person shall be disqualified for being chosen as or for
being a member of a Panchayat if he is not permanent resi-
dent of the State, sec.4 of the Land Alienation Act, 1995
BK. provides that transfer of land in favour of any person
who is not a State subject is prohibited and rule 17(a) of
the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services, Classification of Con-
trol and Appeal Rules provides that no person shall be
eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruit-
ment unless he is a hereditary State subject to be known
hereafter as a permanent resident. It is to be noticed here
that these provisions are not open to challenge as incon-
sistent with the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Con-
stitution of India because of “the Constitution (Application
to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 1954” issued by the President of
India under Art. 370(1)(d) of the Constitution by which Art.
35(A) was added to the Constitution in relation to the State
of Jammu & Kashmir. This Article states:
“35-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Constitution, no existing law in force in
the State of Jammu & 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 & Kashmir; or
(b) conferring on such permanent residences
any special rights and privileges or imposing
upon other persons any restrictions as re-
spects:-
(i) employment under the State Government;
(ii) acquisition of immovable property in the
State;
(iii) settlement in the State; or
375
(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 incon-
sistent with or takes away or abridges
any rights conferred on the other citizens of
India by any provisions of this part.”
The net result is that persons in the position of the peti-
tioner, though citizens of India and entitled to the various
Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, are not
in a position to enjoy many of those rights within the State
of Jammu & Kashmir though they are domiciled in that State
for nearly 40 years.
On the other hand, those who had migrated to West Pakistan
in 1947 and who may choose to return to the State of Jammu &
Kashmir now, appear to stand in a better position. But that
is apparently because of the special position secured to
them in the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution itself. Sec.6(2) of
the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution which has already been
extracted by us, expressly provides that such persons if
they were previously State Subjects of Class I and Class II
shall be permanent residents of the State on their return to
the State of Jammu & Kashmir from West Pakistan under a
permit for resettlement in the State or for permanent return
issued by or under the authority of any law made by the
State Legislature. It is pursuant to this provision that the
Resettlement Act has been enacted.
In the circumstances, in view of the peculiar Constitu-
tional position obtaining in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
We do not see what possible relief we can give to the peti-
tioner and those situate like him. All that we can say is
that the position of the petitioner and those like him is
anomalous and it is up to the Legislature of the State of
Jammu
Kashmir to take action to amend legislature, such as,
the Jammu & Kashmir Representation of the People Act, the
Land Alienation Act, the Village Panchayat Act, etc. so as
to make persons like the petitioner who have migrated from
West Pakistan in 1947 and who have settled down in the State
of Jammu & Kashmir since then, eligible to be included in
the electoral roll, to acquire land, to be elected to the
Panchayat, etc. etc. This can be done by suitably amending
the legislations without having to amend the Jammu & Kashmir
Constitution. In regard to providing employment opportuni-
ties under the State Government. it can be done by the
Government by amending the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services,
Classification of Control and Appeal Rules. In regard to
admission to higher technical educational
376
institutions also, the Government may make these persons
eligible by issuing appropriate executive directions without
even having to introduce any legislation. The petitioners
have a justifiable grievance. We are told that they consti-
tute nearly seven to eight per cent of the population of the
State of Jammu & Kashmir. Surely they are entitled to expect
to be protected by the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In the
peculiar context of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Union
of India also owes an obligation to make some provision for
the advancement of the cultural, economic and educational
rights of these persons. We do hope that the claims of
persons like the petitioner and others to exercise greater
rights of citizenship will receive due consideration from
the Union of India and the State of Jammu & Kashmir. We are,
however, unable to give any relief to the petitioners.
P.S. S Petition
dismissed.
377