The Supreme Court, in its unwavering pursuit of jurisprudential scrutiny, has cast a discerning eye upon the requisites delineated within the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for prospective individuals seeking the coveted mantle of permanent resident status.
Justice Sanjeev Khanna, an esteemed luminary on the august five-judge Constitution bench, which stands resolute in its deliberations, has delivered a trenchant critique, deeming as “anomalous” the stipulation that ownership of property must be secured as an indispensable prerequisite for the attainment of said permanent resident status.
In a legal discourse punctuated with perspicacity, Justice Khanna ventured to articulate, “That’s also exceedingly peculiar, nay, even enigmatic, to proffer that one must hold dominion over property to lay claim to the hallowed mantle of permanent resident status,” thereby elucidating the tribunal’s discerning skepticism on this matter of constitutional import.
Notably, the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution further “acknowledges the ultimate legislative supremacy of the Union of India” in Article 5, a facet illuminated by Justice Khanna, as he navigates the intricacies of this legal labyrinth.
Thus, in this tableau of constitutional contemplation, the Supreme Court’s inquiry reverberates with profound implications, raising pertinent questions about the confluence of legality and propriety within the fabric of our democratic ethos.
