Supreme Court: The five-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ., delivered its verdict, unanimously upholding the Union’s action abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution and directed the restoration of statehood in the State at the earliest. Three Judgments were delivered, one was authored by Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI on behalf of himself, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ., while Justice Kaul and Khanna, J. authored separate but concurring Judgments.
Constitutional Order 272 and 273?
The President issued Constitutional Orders (‘CO’) 272 and 273 during the subsistence of a Proclamation under Article 356(1)(b), whereby, the Constitution of India was applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir abrogating Article 370. Upon dissolution of Legislative Assembly of the State by the Governor under Section 53(2) of the Constitution of the State on 21-11-2018, a report was submitted to the President recommending the invocation of Article 356 of the Constitution. A proclamation was issued by the President on 19-12-2018 under Article 356, promulgating President’s rule in the State. Thereafter, the President issued CO 272, the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 2019 on 05-08-2019, applying all the provisions of the Constitution of India by superseding all previous Constitution Orders by which select provisions of the Constitution were made applicable to the State and Article 367(4) was modified and the term ‘Constituent Assembly’ in the proviso to Article 370(3) to ‘Legislative Assembly’ and was applied to the State. The Parliament also undertook the functioning as the legislature of the State. Soon after, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 under the proviso to Article 3 was accepted by the Lok Sabha and passed by the Rajya Sabha. Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act, 2019, (‘Reorganisation Act’) which provided for the reogranisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated the State into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir with a legislature and Ladakh, without one.
On 06-08-2019, pursuant to the Lok Sabha’s recommendation, the President issued CO 273 under Article 370(3) of the Constitution as amended by CO 272 by which Article 370 ceased to apply to the State. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification on 09-08-2019, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(a) of the Reorganisation Act bringing the provisions of the Act into force with effect from 31-10-2019 following the Presidential assent. Hence, effectively abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution, whereby a special status was granted to the State for its governance.
Analysis
The State of Jammu and Kashmir did not possess sovereignty
The Court noted that Maharaja Hari Singh established a Legislative Assembly called the ‘Praja Sabha’ for the State and delegated certain legislative functions to the Praja Sabha, however, retained supremacy over all legislative, executive and judicial matters. The Court said that this indicated the internal sovereignty in the State. The Court also noted that when India got independence, those of the Princely States which had not signed the Instrument of Accession (‘IoA’) became independent States and Jammu and Kashmir was one such State. Therefore, the sovereignty of the State rested in the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. Soon thereafter, the Court noted that the IoA was signed on 26-10-1947 and the Maharaja acceded to the Dominion of India in the exercise of his sovereignty in and over the said State. The Court on perusal of a note prepared by the Ministry of States regarding the special status to some of the Indian States, said that it clarified that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was to continue on the then-existing basis till the State could be brought to the level of other States and the State would be treated as a part of Indian Territory until Parliament made all the provisions of the Constitution applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the Court said that the special provision for Jammu and Kashmir was not indicative of an element of sovereignty, rather, it was necessitated by the conditions in the State at the time and was intended to continue until the State could be brought on par with other States. The Court also said that the Proclamation issued on 25-11-1949 by Yuvraj Karan Singh, denoted that the constitutional relationship between the State and the Union of India would be governed by the Constitution upon its adoption by the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, the Court stated that the Proclamation reflected the full and final surrender of sovereignty by Jammu and Kashmir, through its sovereign ruler, to India — to her people who are sovereign.
On comparison of the Preamble of the both the Constitutions, the Court pointed out that there is a clear absence in the Constitution of the State of a reference to sovereignty. The Court also referred to SBI v. Santosh Gupta, (2017) 2 SCC 538, wherein, it was held that the permanent residents do not possess dual citizenship — one of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and another of the Union of India. Rather, they are citizens only of one sovereign unit, that is, the Union of India. On perusal of the Article 1 of the Constitution which provides that India is a Union of States and Article 370(1)(c) reiterates that Article 1 shall apply to the State, the Court said that the merger of the State with the Union of India was an unequivocal fact.
Constitutional validity of the Proclamations issued under Article 356 of the Constitution and Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir
The Court noted that soon after the Proclamation issued under Article 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to operate on 19-12-2023, the President issued a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution on the same day and the Presidential rule was further extended by the Parliament for another 6 months. The Court also noted that challenge was raised to the Proclamations under Article 92 until after the tenure of the Proclamation had ended and similarly no challenge was made to the Proclamation under Article 356 immediately after it was issued. It was after the issuance of CO 272 and 273, by the President, that challenges were raised to both the Proclamations issued by the Governor and the President along with both the CO. The Court said that the Presidential power under Article 356 to issue a Proclamation is of an exceptional nature which has wide ramifications on the autonomy of the State and the federal framework at large. Further, the Court said that the laches in challenging the Proclamations cannot by itself be a valid ground to reject a constitutional challenge to the Proclamations issued under Article 356 of the Constitution and Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
However, the Court opined that the present challenges to the validity of the said Proclamations was unsustainable as the principal challenge in the writ petitions was to the abrogation of Article 370 and to the actions taken during the subsistence of President’s rule and not independently to President’s rule by itself. The Court also said that no relief can be granted to the petitioners raising a challenge to the Proclamations, as the Presidential Proclamation was revoked on 31-10-2019.
Article 370- A temporary Provision
The Court said that the Article 370 was introduced to serve two purposes, firstly, the transitional purpose: to provide for an interim arrangement until the Constituent Assembly of the State was formed and could take a decision on the legislative competence of the Union on matters other than the ones stipulated in the Instrument of Accession, and ratify the Constitution; and secondly, a temporary purpose- an interim arrangement in view of the special circumstances because of the war conditions in the State. Referring to language of Part XXI of the Constitution which deals with temporary and transitional provisions, the Court noted that the marginal note of the provision states “temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. Therefore, the Court held that a textual reading of Article 370 also indicated that it is a temporary provision.
The Challenge to CO 272 and 273
The Court noted that the Article 370(3) stipulates that the President may declare that “this article” shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications as he may specify. The Court explained that the President was empowered to exercise this power by issuing a public notification and the proviso to Article 370 provides that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
The Court noted that CO 272 was issued in exercise of the power under Article 370(1)(d) and the Paragraph 2 of CO 272 applies the entire Constitution of India to the State with a ‘modification’ to Article 367 by way of sub-clause (d) of the newly inserted clause (4). The Court said that in terms of this modification, the term “Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” in the proviso to Article 370(3) shall be read as “Legislative Assembly of the State.”
Placing its reliance on Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1972) 1 SCC 536, the Court said that the power under Article 370(1)(b) and 370(1)(d) could only be exercised with the collaboration between the Union and the State, however, if the President secures his own concurrence while exercising the power, the purpose would be lost.
However, in the present case, the Court held that the President sought the concurrence of the Union Government instead of the Government of the State to issue CO 272 was not invalid because, the President has the power under Article 370(3) to unilaterally notify that Article 370 shall cease to exist and the consultation and collaboration between both the units will only be necessary where the application of the provisions of the Indian Constitution to the State would require amendments to the State Constitution. The Court also explained that the principle of consultation and collaboration were not required to be followed, since the effect of applying all the provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir through the exercise of power under Article 370(1)(d) is the same as issuing a notification under Article 370(3) that Article 370 ceases to exist. Therefore, the Court held that the concurrence of the State Government was not required for the exercise power under Article 370(1)(d) to apply all provisions of the Constitution to the State, the President securing the concurrence of the Union of India on behalf of the State Government is not mala fide.
The Court also stated that the effect of a provision of law is as important as its form. The Court explained that while the change sought to be made by Paragraph 2 of CO 272 may appear to be a ‘modification’ or amendment of Article 367 at first blush, its effect is to amend Article 370 itself as the amendment to Article 370 in the language of an amendment or modification to Article 367 but its true import is to amend Article 370. On referring to various authorities about amendment, the Court stated that the consequence of permitting amendments through the circuitous manner would be disastrous. Hence, the Court said that amendments cannot be carried out by bypassing a procedure which has been laid down for that purpose.
Whether the exercise of power under Article 370(3) in issuing CO 273 was justified?
The Court on clarifiying that the President had the power to issue a notification declaring that Article 370(3) ceases to operate without the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly, the continuous exercise of power under Article 370(1) by the President indicates that the gradual process of constitutional integration was ongoing. The declaration issued by the President under Article 370(3) is a culmination of the process of integration and as such is a valid exercise of power. Therefore, the Court held that the exercise of power by the President to issue CO 273 was valid.
Validity of the Reorganisation Act – On Substantive Grounds
The Court noted the Centre’s assurance that statehood will be restored to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and that its status as a Union territory is temporary and the status of the Union Territory of Ladakh will not be affected by the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the Court held that it was not necessary to determine whether the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir was permissible under Article 3. The Court held that the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory was upheld as Article 3(a) read with Explanation I permits the forming of a Union Territory by separation of a territory from any State. Expressing a concern for the security issues in the territory, the Court said that the Direct elections to the Legislative Assemblies which is one of the paramount features of representative democracy in India cannot be put on hold until statehood is restored. Therefore, the Court directed the Election Commission of India that steps shall be taken to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act by 30-09-2024.
On Procedural Grounds
The Court said that on arriving at the conclusion that the CO 272 was valid, all the provisions of the Constitution apply to the State and the exceptions and modifications to the provisions of the Constitution in its application to Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist. The Court explained with a timeline that the CO 272 was issued by the President on 5-08-2019 and on the same day, the Reorganization Bill was sent to the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha for securing their views under the first proviso to Article 3 and the Rajya Sabha passed the Reorganization Act, the next day, the Lok Sabha passed the Reorganization Act. Thus, the Court said that when the Reorganisation Bill was introduced, the second proviso to Article 3 as it applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist because of CO 272. Therefore, the Court held that the issue of whether the second proviso to Article 3 could have been suspended in exercise of the power under Article 356(1)(c) no longer sustained.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul uniformly agreed that Article 370 of the Constitution was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty and that it was enacted as a transitional provision and did not have permanent character with his concurring opinion.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurred with the two judgments with his own particular reasoning. He stated that conversion of a State into Union Territory has grave consequences, amongst others, it denies the citizens of the State an elected state government and impinges on federalism. Justice Khanna said that the conversion or creation of a Union Territory from a State has to be justified by giving very strong and cogent grounds and must be in strict compliance with Article 3 of the Constitution.
[Article 370 of the Constitution, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1647, Decided on: 11-12-2023]
Judgments Authored by: CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul — A torch bearer of Freedom of Speech and Expression
Know Thy Judge| Supreme Court of India: Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
AOR Aakarsh Kamra, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, AOR N. Sai Vinod, Advocate Prasanna S, Advocate Malavika Prasad, Advocate Shadan Farasat, Advocate Rupali Samuel, Advocate Archit Krishna, Advocate Vibhor Jain, Advocate M.V. Mukunda, Advocate Swati Arya, Advocate Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Senior Advocate Muzaffar Hussain Baig, AOR Aftab Ali Khan, Advocate Murtazza. A. Khan, Advocate Safina Baig, Advocate M.Z. Chaudhary, Advocate Ali Safeer Farooqi, AOR Anirudh Sharma, Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, Advocate Pratibha Sinha, Advocate Rakesh Mudgal, Advocate Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate Niraj Kumar, Advocate Sneh Vardhan, Advocate Ritu Raj, AOR Advocate Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate Vijayalaxmi Jha, Advocate Jyoti Kumari, AOR M.C. Dhingra, Advocate Vikrant Yadav, Advocate Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate Madhavi Yadav, Advocate Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mohnish Nirwan, Advocate Prashi Tyagi, Advocate Syed Imtiyaz, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Advocate Aparna Singh, Advocate Shivani Vij, Advocate Tanya Srivastava, Advocate Aditi Gupta, Advocate Trisha Chandran, Advocate Jhanvi Dubey, Advocate Ishita Chowdhury, Advocate Satyajit Sarna, Advocate Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Advocate Vikramaditya, Advocate Vishal Sinha, AOR Charu Ambwani, Advocate Soayib Qureshi, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, AOR D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate Shishir Pinaki, Advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, Advocate Dhanaeswar Gudapalli, Advocate Gautam Bhatia, Advocate Aparajita Jamwal, Advocate Malavika Prasad, Advocate Nizam Pasha, Advocate Ujwala Uppaluri, Advocate Jayavardhan Singh, Advocate Rishabh Parikh, Advocate Hima Lawrence, Advocate Desam Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate Mallika Das, Advocate Pawan Bhushan, Advocate D. Siva Rami Reddy, Advocate K. Venkateshwara Prasad, Advocate Lakshay Laroiya, Advocate Medi Yadaiah, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, Advocate Dr. Saif Mahmood, AOR D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Advocate Amjid Maqbool, Advocate Bidya Mohanty, Senior Advocate Advocate Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, AOR Arjun Krishnan, Advocate Ankur Singh, Advocate Pratik Patnaik, Advocate Kaustav Som, Advocate Aishwarya Dash, Advocate Dr. Prashant Pratap, Advocate Farah Hashmi, Advocate Somya Yadava, Advocate Akshita Chhabra, Advocate Khyati Jain, Advocate Ranvir Singh, Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, AOR Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Advocate Sulabh Rewari, Advocate Aditya Chatterjee, Advocate Mansi Binjrajka, Advocate Vidisha Singh, AOR P.V. Dinesh, Advocate Anna Oommen, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Advocate Shamim Irshad, Advocate Arshid Bashir, Advocate Rifat Ara Butt, AOR Jyotika Kalra, Advocate Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Advocate Joydeep Mukherjee, Advocate Tripurari Ray, Advocate Balwant Singh Billowria, Advocate Atul Wadera, Advocate Anirudh Ray, Advocate Vivekanand Singh, Advocate Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Akshay Singh, Advocate Nithyananda Murthy P, Advocate Bhanu Prabha, AOR Shilpa Singh, Senior Advocate Ravindra Kumar Raizada, AOR Divya Roy, Advocate Sarthak Raizada, Advocate Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocate Surjeet Singh, Advocate Yasharth Kant, AOR Pallav Mongia, Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate Parth Yadav, Advocate Mani Munjal, Advocate Marbiang Khongwir, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate Roop Chaudhary, Advocate Eklavya Dwivedi, Advocate Chandra Shekhar, Senior Advocate Dr. Maneka Guruswamy, Advocate Utkarsh Pratap, Advocate Lavkesh Bhambani, Advocate Harshwardhan Thakur, Advocate Vidur Dwivedi, Advocate Akashdeep Pandey, Advocate Shahbaaz Jameel, Advocate Amit Pandey, Advocate Ayush Pandey, Advocate Ali Muzaffar, Advocate Monish Ali Khan, AOR Kausar Raza Faridi, Advocate Mehmood Umar Farouqui, Senior Advocate Advocate Z.A. Shah, Advocate Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate G.N. Shaheen, Advocate N.A. Ronga, Advocate M. Ashraf Bhat, Advocate Towseef Ahmed Dar, Advocate Bashir Sadiq, Advocate Sanjay K. Chaddha, Advocate Onkar Prasad, Advocate Ajay Amritraj, Advocate Barnali Basak, Advocate Shweta Sand, Advocate Baby Devi Bonia, Advocate Raju Sonkar, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, Advocate Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocate Ashutosh Jha
For Respondents: Advocate General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG K.M. Nataraj, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, Advocate Kanu Agrawal, Advocate Rajat Nair, Advocate Ankur Talwar, Advocate Sharadha Deshmukh, Advocate Madhav Singhal, Advocate Anand Venkatramani, Advocate Vijay Lakshmi Venkatramani, Advocate Vinayak Mehrotra, Advocate Mansi Sood, Advocate Chitvan Sinhal, Advocate Sonali Jain, Advocate Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advocate Raman Yadav, Advocate Kartikay Aggarawal, Advocate Prantap Singh, Advocate Gaurang Bhushan, Advocate Aman Mehta, Advocate Chitransh Sharma, Advocate Vatsal Joshi, Advocate Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Advocate Dr. Reeta Vasishta, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate General Shailesh Madiyal, Senior Advocate D.C. Raina, AAG Shailesh Madiyal, AAG Advocate Kanu Agrawal, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate Parth Awasthi, Advocate Rushab Aggarwal, Advocate Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Advocate Astik Gupta, Advocate Akshay Kumar, Advocate Akanksha Tomar, Advocate Vaibhav Sabharwal, Advocate Akanksha Tomar, Advocate Divija Mahajan, Advocate Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Advocate Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, AOR Advocate Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate V. Giri, Advocate Suveni Bhagat, Advocate Harshad Sunder, Advocate Rahul Narang, Advocate Rao Vishwaja, AOR Advocate Deepak Goel, Advocate Rahul G. Tanwani, Advocate Manan Shanghai, Advocate V C Shukla, Advocate Prashant Singh, Advocate Anantha Narayan, Advocate Vipin Kumar Sexana, Advocate Chaman Rana, Advocate Alka Goyal, Advocate Urvashi Sharma, Advocate Kumar Kartikay, Advocate Mani Shanker Mishra, Advocate Jitendra Bharti, Advocate Baby Devi Bonia, Advocate Harshita Maheshwari, AOR Shadan Farasat, Advocate Warisha Farasat, Advocate Harshit Anand, Advocate Aman Naqvi, Advocate Prasana S,Advocate Hrishika Jain, Advocate Natasha Maheshwari, Advocate Mreganka Kukreja, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, AOR Satya Mitra, Advocate Advocate Mugdha, AOR Harvinder Chowdhury, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate Roop Chaudhary, Advocate Chandra Shekhar, AOR Advocate G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocate Vasantha Kumar A, Advocate Selvaraj Mahendran, Advocate P.V. Harikrishnan, Advocate Dr. Sumit, AOR Manoj K. Mishra, Advocate Rajshree Rai, Advocate Vinay Rai, Advocate J.K. Mishra, Advocate Umesh Dubey, Advocate Amrendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Madhulika, Advocate Rahul Pandey, senior Advocate Bimal Roy Jad, Advocate Dr. Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Advocate Riddhi Jad, Advocate Suresh Kumar Bhan, Advocate O.P. Singh, Advocate Harsh Mahan, Advocate Deepak Jyoti Ghildiyal, Advocate Baby Rani Bonia, Advocate Mini Bhardwaj, AAdvocate Purnima Jauhari, Advocate Sudha Pal, Advocate Rachna Gandhi, Advocate Vuzmal Nehru, Advocate Col. N B Vishen, Advocate Raghav Sabharwal, Advocate Tanvi Dubey, Advocate Anukrit Gupta, Advocate Rahul Unnikrishnan, Advocate Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate Varun Byreddy, Advocate Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate Riju Raj Singh Jamwal, AOR Madhusmita Bora, AOR K. Krishna Kumar, AOR Soayib Qureshi, AOR Disha Singh, Advocate Shivendu Gaur, Advocate Mrs. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate Mohit, Senior Advocate P.V. Surendranath, AOR Advocate Resmitha R. Chandran, Advocate Subhash Chandran K.R., Advocate Sawan Kumar Shukla, Advocate Sarvan Kumar, Advocate Murari Prasad Shukla, AOR Sumit R. Sharma, Senior Advocate S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Advocate Dileep Kumar Dubey, Advocate Yash Raj Singh Bundela, Advocate Amit Sharma, Advocate Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate Vishnu Kant, Advocate Surjeet Singh, Advocate Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate Pavan Kumar, Advocate Aviral Saxena, Advocate Kavitha K T, Advocate Ashwin K, Advocate Gopal Jha, Advocate Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Advocate Siddharth Sinha, Advocate Rajesh K. Singh, Advocate Shyamal Kumar, Advocate Bitu Kumar Singh, Advocate Sunil Kumar Tomar, Advocate Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Sandeep Singh, Advocate Pawan, Advocate Srishti Mishra, Advocate Rishi Tutu, Advocate Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate Nitin Sangra, AOR Shweta Singh Parihar, AOR Irshad Ahmad, Advocate Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Advocate M. Khairati, AOR Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate Rajesh K Singh, Advocate Shyamal Kumar, Advocate Bitu Kumar Singh, Adv. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate Sindoora Vnl, Advocate V.C. Shukla, Advocate Kumar Prashant, Advocate Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Advocate Avnish Dave, Advocate Vaibhav Dwivedi, Advocate Shashwat Nath, Advocate Sneh Lata Mishra, AOR Siddharth Praveen Acharya, Advocate Bhunesh Vyas, Advocate Nandini Choudha, Advocate Ravi Kant Purohit, Advocate Lokendra Singh, Advocate Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate Puja Sharma, Advocate Kunal Sachdeva, Advocate Madhuri Jain, Advocate Balwinder Singh Suri, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, Advocate Anil Kaushik, Advocate Ravi Sharma, Advocate Mugdha Pandey, Advocate Ajay Awasthi, Advocate Ishita Farsaiya, Advocate Puneet Chahar, Advocate Prabhleen A Shukla, Advocate Pawan Kumar, AOR B. K. Satija, Senior Advocate Harish N. Salve, Advocate Ajit Tadav, Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate Pankaj Jamthani, Advocate Dileep Kumar Dubey, Advocate Alabhya Dhamija, Advocate Ajit Yadav, Advocate Surjeet Singh, Advocate Vishnu Kant, Advocate Sujata Upadhyay, Advocate Sarthak Raizada, AOR Divya Roy, AOR P.S. Sudheer, AOR K.V. Muthu Kumar, Advocate Anu B, Senior Advocate Z.A. Shah, AOR Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate G.N. Shaheen, Advocate N.A. Ronga, Advocate M. Ashraf Bhat, AAdvocate Towseef Ahmed Dar, Advocate Towseef Ahmed, Advocate Bashir Sadiq, Advocate Sanjay K. Chaddha, Advocate Onkar Prasad, Advocate Ajay Amritraj, Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, AOR K.K. Mohan, Advocate Prateek Dwivedi, Advocate Nishant Singh, Advocate Omprakash Ajitsingh Parihar, Advocate Arbind Kumar, Advocate Dushyant Tiwari, AOR Advocate Manju Jetley, Advocate Pooja Sagar, Advocate Sandeep, Advocate Sunil Prakash Pandey, Advocate Sarika Sriwastava, Advocate Praveen Pathak, Advocate Nagan Pillai, Advocate Davinder Pal Kaur, Advocate Harpreet Singh, Advocate Chandan Mishra, Advocate Shraddha Khandadia
,
Buy Constitution of India HERE
