Yesterday, the Chief Justice’s bench of the Delhi High Court heard a PIL challenging a proviso added to Article 368 via the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 1954..The petitioner Surjeet Singh has claimed that this proviso denies the people of Jammu & Kashmir from enjoying the “benefits and fruits of Constitution Amendments done by the Parliament”..The order in question amends Article 368 (power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution), stating that,.“No such amendment shall have effect in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir unless applied by order of the President under clause (1) of Article 370″.In other words, without a Presidential order to that effect, any constitutional amendment will not hold true for the state of Jammu & Kashmir. As per the petition, filed by advocates Divya Roy, Divya Pratap and Rekha Rani Dey, the last Constitutional amendment that was made applicable to J&K was way back in 1989..Yesterday, senior counsel R.K. Raizada appeared for the petitioner before Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. There were two interesting lines of argument made..The first, was in response to a query from the bench. Chief Justice Rohini questioned Raizada on the doctrine of forum non conveniens stating that prima facie, the High Court of J&K would be a more appropriate forum for the case to be heard in. In response, Raizada stated that J&K was not bound by the Constitution, and hence the PIL in the Delhi High Court. .The other interesting contention raised was in connection with the oath that High Court judges take during their swearing in. The petition reads,.“However a Judge in Jammu and Kashmir High Court, much against the basic structure requirement and effect of such oath, does not take oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to uphold the Constitution.”As per this report in The Indian Express, Chief Justice Rohini observed that it was the petitioner’s contention that Jammu & Kashmir’s High Court judges,“do not appear to be taking oath owing allegiance to uphold the Constitution of India.”In the end, the bench stated that it would like to hear the response from the Center and the J&K Government and listed the matter for February 13..Read the petition below.