Upload
pvravi-chandran
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
1/55
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011
In the Matter of
P.V.Ravi ChandranAdvocate,
5, Divya Krupa,1st Street Extn.Sri Krishna Nagar,Maduravayal,Chennai 600095 ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India,Through the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs,Department of Home Affairs,North Block, Central Secretariat,Nav Dehli 110001.
2. The State of Jammu and KashmirRepresented by its Chief Secretary,Department of Home,
Secretariat,Srinagar 190009,Jammu and Kashmir
3. The Surveyor General of India,Survey of IndiaHathibarkala EstateDehra Dun 248001,Uttara Khand .
Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT OF DECLARATION
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
2/55
2
To
The Honourable Chief Justice of India and hiscompanion Brethren Justices of the HonourableSupreme Court of India.
The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. The Petitioner is an advocate practicing in the
Honourable High Court of Madras and is having his chamber
at 294, New Addl. Law Chambers, High Court Bldgs., Netaji
Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Chennai 600104. He has been
evincing deep interest in the border issues since over the
past 20 years and has read many books and visited
numerous libraries, and has been upset and distressed and
had sleepless nights and cold sweat in view of the so called
border talks which are being blatantly conducted from a
position of subservience by the 1st respondent and the
outcome of the so-called border talks is hanging over India
like the sword of Damocles and the whole proceedings are
ab initio null and void and are vitiated by duress, undue
influence, subservience, coercion and fraud. The issue very
much pertains to the territorial integrity of India and hence
the issue is in public interest. Besides, the human rights of
the Citizens of India have been violated and therefore, the
petitioner is approaching this Honble Court invoking Article
32 of the Constitution of India after his representation dated
17.11.2010 has not been heeded. The Petitioner had sent a
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
3/55
3
telegram dated 17.07.2006 to the first respondent warning
that the so called border talks were an exercise in futility and
the whole proceeding was vitiated by duress, undue
influence and subservience and was ab initio illegal and null
and void and any outcome would only create a situation
whereby the proud people of India would have to denounce
the 1st respondent and repudiate the outcome of the said
so-called Border talks. Copy of the Telegram sent by the
petitioner dated 17.7.2006 to the first respondent is annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.1. (_51-52)
2. The Petitioner herein states that, at the time
pertaining to period of the commencement of the
Constitution of India, the official Survey of India maps had
either deliberately abstained from and desisted from
depicting the northern border of Kashmir or simply used the
legend Undefined Frontier in the part of Kashmir just short
of the border on either the crest of the watershed of the
Kuen Lun and or beyond the Kuen Lun range. Some of the
maps of the Survey of India also did not depict the northern
border of Kashmir and did not extend the colour wash to
the entire state of Kashmir but nevertheless depicted the
caption or legend Kashmir or Gilgit Agency well
extending to the areas of Kashmir not included within the
colour wash, to the area in the vicinity of 76 degrees East
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
4/55
4
Longitude and 37 degrees North latitude, i.e. beyond the
Aghail and Karakoram ranges and beyond the Raskam river
within the area of Kanjut, in the vicinity of the Kuen Lun
range and the Mariom and Taghdumbash Pamir, i.e. the area
which at present is illegally not depicted as part of Kashmir
by the Surveyor General of India, which unequivocally and
without an iota of doubt proves that even those areas of
Kashmir not shown in colour up to the Kuen Lun range and
beyond are integral and inalienable parts of Kashmir. The 1 st
Respondent herein even explicitly admitted the said fact in
the publication, viz., `Atlas of the Northern Frontier of India',
wherein it is unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms by
1st Respondent herein in the map at page 20 that the British
cartographers gave a dark shade for areas only where they
had their jurisdiction and in the rest of India, only a lighter
shade was used. Copy of Extract from publication of the Ist
respondent herein., viz., Atlas of the Northern Frontier of
India is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.2.
(53) In the very same publication is a portrayal an
ancient old East Asian map titled Map of the Western
Regions (held by the Manchurian rulers of adjacent China to
the south) appended to the Hsi-yu-tu-chih, compiled on the
orders of Emperor Chien-lung in 1762, which depicts the
southern boundary of East Turkistan with India along the
northern foothills of the Kuen Lun Range, the 1st Respondent
http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/2010/03/lun_29.htmlhttp://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/2010/03/lun_29.html8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
5/55
5
herein has once again unequivocally and in no uncertain
terms admitted that "The map makes clear that Sinkiang
extended in the south only up to the Kuen Lun Range". Some
Survey of India maps also actually unequivocally depicted
the northern border of Kashmir on the crest or watershed of
the Kuen Lun range. The respondent is esstopped from
changing the aforesaid stance. Copy of Extract from
publication of the Ist respondent herein., viz., Atlas of the
Northern Frontier of India is annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE P.3. (_54_)
3. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is as
enumerated or stipulated in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of
the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads The territory which
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution
was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir states,
The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories
which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the
sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State". The
maps, viz. the official maps attached to the 2 White Papers
published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the
Government of India's Ministry of States, headed,
incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority
of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney bind it in law and
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htmhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
6/55
6
give them the legal status to determine the extent of the
territory of the State of Kashmir as stipulated in Entry 15 in
the First Schedule of the Constitution on India. The said
official maps presented with the White Papers show and
prove that the northern border of Kashmir with East
Turkistan at the time of the accession of the state to the
Union of India and the commencement of the Constitution of
India was on the Kuen Lun range and beyond, the natural
and historic border of Kashmir with the neighbouring Trans-
Kuen Lun State of East Turkistan. Pertinently, it is imperative
to note that vast areas shown in the colour wash, thus
explicitly depicting the said area as an integral part of
Kashmir in the aforesaid maps pertaining to the period of the
commencement of the Constitution of India, includes areas
which are illegally not depicted as part of Kashmir by the
present office of the Surveyor General of India presently
since 1954.
4. To quote Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru himself from his
telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime
Minister, Clement Attlee, he reiterates and in no uncertain
terms says, "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware,
run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan,
`the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and `China' ". Also,
the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir states in his
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.html8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
7/55
7
correspondence with Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated
October 26, 1947, Besides, my State has a common
boundary with the Soviet Republic and China. This is
only possible only since because inter alia Dafdar in the
Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut is part of Kashmir. The map of
Kashmir as depicted in the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909
also depicted the Taghdumbash Pamir as part of Kashmir.
Copies of Telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British
Prime Minister, Clement Attlee from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
and correspondence of the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir
with Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947 are
annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.4 & P.5. (55
& 56-59 )
5. The various surveys done prior to 1947 have resulted in
unanimous conclusions that the southern border of East
Turkistan never even extended to the south beyond the
northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir. The
Chinese completed the reconquest of Eastern Turkistan in
1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical authority,
as Ney Elias and Francis Younghusband consistently
maintained, had never extended south of their outposts at
Snj and Kilian along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun
range. Nor did they establish a known presence to the south
of the line of outposts in the twelve years immediately
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
8/55
8
following their return1. Ney Elias who had been Joint
Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21
September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879 and
1880 when he visited Kashgar. they told me that they
considered their line of chatze, or posts, as their frontier
viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that they had no
concern with what lay beyond the mountains 2i.e. the area
beyond the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir wherein are
situate the Hdutsh pass and Snj La passes in Kashmir
and in particular, the area in the highlands of Kashmir
between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun ranges. Similarly, the
findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson , who was the Civil
Assistant of the Trigonometrical Survey of India, in July
1865, established certain important pertinent points.
"Brinjga was in his view the boundary post" (near the
Karanghu Tagh Peak near Khushlashlangar, in the Kuen Lun
in Ladakh ), thus implying "that the boundary lay along the
Kuen Lun Range". Johnsons findings demonstrated that the
whole of the Kara Kash valley was within the territory of the
Maharaja of Kashmir and an integral part of the territory of
Kashmir. "He noted where the Chinese boundary post was
accepted. At Yangi Langar, three marches from Khotan, he
noticed that there were a few fruit trees at this place which
1Aksai Chin and Sino-Indian Conflict by John Lall at pages 56-57, 59, 95, Allied Publishers PrivateLtd, Nav Dehli.2For. Sec. F. October 1889, 182/197.
http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
9/55
9
originally was a post or guard house of the Chinese". To
quote from Himalayan Battleground by Margaret W. Fisher,
Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, page 116 The Khan
wrote Johnson that he had dispatched his Wazier, Saifulla
Khoja to meet me at Bringja, the first encampment beyond
the Ladakh boundary for the purpose of escorting me thence
to Ilchi. Brinjga is a few miles southeast of Karanghutagh;
thus the Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range as the
southern boundary of his dominion . According to W.H.
Johnson:
the last portion of the route to
Shadulla (Shahidulla in north-
eastern Kashmir) is particularly
pleasant, being the whole of the
Karakash valley which is wide and
even, and shut in either side by
rugged mountains. On this route I
noticed numerous extensive
plateaux near the river, covered
with wood and long grass. These
being within the territory of the
Maharaja of Kashmir, could easily
be brought under cultivation by
Ladakhees and others, if they could
be induced and encouraged to do
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
10/55
10
so by the Kashmeer Government.
The establishment of villages and
habitations on this river would be
important in many points of view,
but chiefly in keeping the route
open from the attacks of the
Khergiz robbers.
The findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson hold good to this
day and nothing at all has changed legally. The map
pertaining to the findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson who
was the Civil Assistant of the Trigonometrical Survey of India
and also later the Wazir of the Ladakh Wazarat, in July 1865
unequivocally depicts the northern border of Kashmir with
Khotan in the area of the historic Hdutsh and Snj La
passes in north eastern Kashmir, on the crests of the Kuen
Lun range not withstanding the fact that even the said map
does not reflect the true findings pertaining to the survey of
W.H. Johnson. Colonel Walker who was the Surveyor General
in 1867, whose motives are suspect, confessed and insisted
that the map as published was far different from Johnsons
Original. The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled
under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in
the Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 states at
page 493 apropos Khotan, A province of the Chinese
http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
11/55
11
Empire lying to the north of the Eastern Kuenlun range,
which here forms the boundary of Ladk. The same
Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk gives a description of the
Yarkand or Raskam river in northern Kashmir at Page 860:
The Yrkand river rises north of the
Karakoram pass. Its course is for the first
30 miles north east to Mlikshh.
Thence north west for 56 miles to Kirghiz
Jungle. From Kirghiz Jungle it flows 15
miles west to Kulanuldi camp. Up to this
point its course is followed by the Kugiar
(or winter) route from Ladk to Yrkand.
Beyond Kulanuldi it continues west for
some distance, and then takes a
sudden bend to the north into Yrkand
territory.
Copy of the Extract from the Gazetteer of Kashmir and
Ladak compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master
General in India in the Intelligence Branch is annexed hereto
and marked as ANNEXURE P.6. ( 60 )
6. So, when the Government of Kashmir in 1885, at a time
when the Chinese were least concerned or bothered of the
alien trans-Kuen Lun areas in the highlands of Kashmir ,
beyond their restive eastern Turkistan dominion and had
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
12/55
12
literally washed their hands of it, prepared to reunify the
whole of Kashmir and the Wazir of Ladakh, Pandit Radha
Kishen initiated steps to restore the old historic Kashmiri
Kuen Lun out post of Shahidullah in north-eastern Kashmir
which commanded the Kuen Lun range border area
including Kilian and Kathai Tam in Kashmir, Ney Elias who
was British Joint Commissioner in Ladakh and spying on the
Government of Kashmir raised objections and the English
Government also threatened and intimidated the
Government of Kashmir and unfortunately the subservient
Government of Kashmir capitulated and succumbed. This
very energetic officer , he wrote to the Resident, who duly
forwarded the letter to the Government of India, wants the
Maharaja to reoccupyShahidulla in the Karakash valley .I
see indications of his preparing to carry it out, and, in my
opinion, he should be restrained, or an awkward boundary
question may be raised with the Chinese without any
compensating advantage.3 The said Ney Elias was
notorious for his hatred of Kashmiris and described the
people of Kashmir as Greedy4. Thus, after successfully
obstructing and preventing the reunification of Kashmir,
when the Chinese crossed the Kuen Lun range and thus
encroached into Kashmir in 1892 after thus being given a
veritable carte blanche by the deceitful English, and illegally
3Sec. F. November 1885,12/14(12)4For. Sec. F.Pros. November 1885, 12/14(12)
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
13/55
13
placed an alleged boundary mark pillar deep in the interior
of the territory of Kashmir in the Karakoram pass area in
central Kashmir, the then government of India which was
entirely responsible for the situation, betrayed and
abandoned Kashmir, but Kashmir nevertheless did not forfeit
her territorial integrity vis--vis inter alia the border on the
crests of the Kuen Lun range and beyond, and the
Shahidulla out post and The Wazir Wazart of Ladakh,
complained to the Vice- President of the Kashmir State
Council, of the Chinese Amban who had illegally constructed
the Pillar that as far as he had been able to ascertain, his
own frontier was considered upto Shahidulla (Shahidulla area
virtually on the southern flanks of the Kuen Lun range and
commanding Kuen Lun range, extended inter alia up to the
Kilian pass and Kathaitam in Kashmir) where one of his
predecessors had built a fort which was still standing. This
proved, he added that the state frontier extends to that
place. 5In 1927, the Indian Government, according to a
report in The Times, dated March 6, 1963 decided that a
claim of the Mir of Kashmir that his dominions were bound on
the north by the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges
was insupportable. The issue which is evident from the
aforesaid report in The Times is that even in 1927, the
Government of Kashmir was reiterating that the northern
5Himalayan Frontiers by Dorothy Woodman. Pg. 54 , published inter alia by London Barrie andRockliff The Cresset Press 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
14/55
14
border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the
Kuenlun ranges and beyond as recent as till 1923. The
Government of Kashmir maintained two caravan routes right
up to the traditional Kuen Lun boundary. One, from Pamzal,
known as the Eastern Changchenmo route, passed through
Nischu, Lingzi Thang, Lak Tsung, Thaldat, Khitai Pass, Haji
Langar along the Karakash valley(obviously via Sumgal in
Ladakh ) to Shahidulla. Police outposts were placed along
these routes to protect the traders from the Khirghiz
marauders who roamed the Aksai Chin after Yaqub Begs
rebellion against the Chinese(1864-1878)6.
7. The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled under
the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the
Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 gives a
description and details of places inside Kashmir and thus
ipso facto also includes a description of the Hdutsh Pass
in north eastern Kashmir in the Aksai Chin area in Kashmir in
the vicinity of the Shahidulla out post. The aforesaid
Gazetteer states in pages 520 and 364 that The eastern
(Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan,
and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, ....
and the Hindutak (i.e. Hdutsh ) Dwn. The aforesaid
Gazetteer rightly includes Pal as a place in Ladakh in
6Himalayan Frontiers by Dorothy Woodman. Pg.66, published inter alia by London Barrie andRockliff The Cresset Press 1969
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lingzi_Thang&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumgalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahidullahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqub_Beghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lingzi_Thang&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumgalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahidullahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqub_Beg8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
15/55
15
Kashmir. Besides, the map pertaining to the findings of the
survey of W.H. Johnson in July 18657, the map referred to in
Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain,
China and Tibet dated the 5th July 1914 also depicts the
southern border of Khotn and East Turkistan with Kashmir
on the Kuen Lun range in the area of Hindutash in Kashmir as
a red line. Inter alia, even the 1900 edition of the notorious
Times Atlas had also depicted the Hindutash pass as part of
Kashmir, though in the subsequent editions the publishers
had for obvious reasons best known to them and with out
consistency and with out any legal valid change of
circumstances, desisted from depicting Hindutash as part of
Kashmir. Copy of Extract from the Gazetteer of Kashmir and
Ladak compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master
General in India in the Intelligence Branch and first Published
in 1890 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURES P.7,
(61), P.8, (62-63) P.9.( 64).
8. Even antique maps and works pertaining to the southern
limits of Khotan show and state that the southern limits of
Khotan was only along the northern foothills of the Kuen Lun
range. A map drawn towards the end of the sixth century
A.D clearly shows the Kuen Lun range as the southern limits
of East Turkistan. Another map drawn in 1607 by a Buddhist
priest , Jen Chao depicts the Tsungling mountains just
7Report of the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, 1866 P.6.
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
16/55
16
immediately adjacent to Khotan as the southern limits of
Turkistan. Another map from the work, Chin ting huang yu
hsi yu tu chih which might be translated as Annals and
Maps of the Western Territories of the Empire published in
1762 depict the southern boundary of Turkistan with India at
Snj Tagh in the Kuen Lun range. Another map from the
Chin ting hsin chiang chih lueh, an account of Sinkiang
published by a commission set up by scholars and officials
of Peking in 1821 contains several maps of Sinkiang in book
3. The map on page 4(b) of book 3 depicts the southern
limits of East Turkistan as the Tsungling by which is meant
the Kuen Lun range and the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash
are depicted as cutting through the Kuen Lun Mountains.
Pertinently, the Yurung Kash has nothing whatsoever to do
with the Karakoram range and has its source from the Kuen
Lun range, which proves that by no stretch of imagination
could the Tsungling be identified as the Karakoram range in
central Kashmir. Even at that time 1821, even the source of
the Yurung Kash was not in Sinkiang. Another map from
the book Hsi yu shui tao chi which can be translated as
Remarks on the rivers of the western Countries, written by
Hsu Hsing-po published in 1824 shows a map in eight sheets
and sheet number 7 depicts the southern limits of Khotn
as the southern Mountains or Nanshan which is obviously
one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun since both the
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
17/55
17
Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted as cutting
through the mountains. A Nei fu yu tu map of 1760
depicted the southern limits of Khotan as lying along a range
of mountains immediately to the south of Khotan from which
the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash were said to have their
origin and the mountain range situate immediately to the
south of Khotn is the Kuen Lun range. The 1820 edition of
the Ta Ching yi tung chih depicted the Nimangyi mountains
immediately south of Khotan and the same work stated that
these mountains were the same as the Ho lang kwei and the
Ho shi mo tissu mountains. Ho lang kwei was the Kurangu
range of the Kuen Lun range. A map from the Ta Ching hui
tien tu of 1818 also showed the Nimangyi mountains as the
southern limits of East Turkistan. A map from the Chin ting
hsin chiang chih lueh of 1821 depicts the southern limits of
the country along one of the northern ranges of the Kuen Lun
with both the Qara Qash and the Yurung Kash are depicted
as cutting through that range.
9. It is verily believed that in 1954, one Mr. Jawaharlal
Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India had, out of the blue
stealthily and surreptitiously published for the first time , a
new map of Kashmir after the Ist respondent secretly
colluded with the Chinese. In June 1954, Zhou Enlai, Prime
Minister of China was in India, and in the October of the
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
18/55
18
same year, the aforesaid Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru went to
China. In between, Mr. Nehru issued a 17 Para Memorandum
dated 1, July 1954 which was subsequently proven to be a
lie, which stated inter alia that the frontier should be
considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to
discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be
spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should
have Check posts in such places as might be considered
disputed areas. In 1954, thus a new official despicable
map of India was illegally published out of the blue,
stealthily by Nehru, which altogether dropped the legend
undefined frontier often previously used `and showed the
alleged northern border of Kashmir with a clear firm line
referred to hereinafter as the Nehru Line. Mr. Nehru, in
consonance with his bogus Memorandum, which stated
that the frontier should be a firm and definite one, which is
not open to discussion with any one, arbitrarily and illegally
depicted a border of Kashmir which ran well in the interior of
Kashmir depicting only those areas of Kashmir which
according to his whims and fancies was definitely part of
Kashmir and beyond dispute, thus depicting large areas of
Kashmir as not part of Kashmir, so as to make the border of
Kashmir indisputable , and thus definite and firm, and leave
no room for any future controversy. Pertinently, it is
imperative to note that even vast areas included within the
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
19/55
19
colour wash and situate to the south of the legend
Undefined Frontier, in the aforesaid two official maps
pertaining to the period of the commencement of the
Constitution of India are illegally not depicted as part of
Kashmir by the present office of the Surveyor General of
India presently. This raises a question of fundamental
importance which has not been discussed all these decades.
The Government of Indias shenanigans on the entire map
business only invite ridicule.8 The Petitioner is given to
understand that Mr. Nehru subsequently in order to protect
his bogus maps clandestinely published out of the blue in
1954, gave orders that all the maps pertaining to the crucial
period of the Commencement of the Constitution of India be
burnt and thus by that nefarious reprehensible criminal act,
ipso facto all precious incriminating evidence pertaining to
the period of the Commencement of the Constitution of India
and the territorial extent of India was thus blatantly
destroyed. Incidentally, the 1st Respondent herein is now in
overt and covert collusion with the Chinese, clandestinely
and surreptitiously attempting to give away even territory
within the firm and definite frontier... not open to discussion
with any one under the pretext of the so-called border talks
with the Chinese on the basis of the illegal Nehru Line,
which are ab initio illegal and is null and Void and the whole8 Freedom of Expression in Maps, A.G. Noorani Chapter 44, pg. 327, appeared in FrontlineMagazine, a Publication ofThe Hindudated 8, May 1992. "Citizens' Rights, Judges and StateAccountability"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hinduhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hinduhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hinduhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
20/55
20
endeavour is only a modus operandi solely and exclusively
to facilitate the purpose of giving Indias beloved inalienable
Aksai Chin area wherein is situate inter alia the Hindutash
pass and Sanju La to the Chinese militarily holding East
Turkistan. If China has the audacity to claim Arunachal
Pradesh which is situate beyond the edges of the Plateau of
Tibet, then India should also reiterate that Khotan which is
also geographically similarly placed and is beyond the edge
of the highlands of Kashmir at Hindutash in Kashmir which is
the southern border of Khotan is historically part of India. If
China is claiming vast inalienable and integral parts of
Kashmir like inter alia the Aksai Chin, Raskam, Shimshal and
Shaksgam valleys in Kashmir, it is tantamount to claiming
the Karakoram range which is the interior main watershed in
the highlands of Kashmir, and India should then claim the
Nyenchen Thanglha range which is similarly the interior main
watershed in the Plateau of Tibet as a part of the border of
India. Only then would the so called border talks be
meaningful and make some sense, and India not subservient.
The fact that the western border of Ladakh with Tibet was
also not precisely depicted was because the Rudokh was an
integral part of Ladakh. In fact, the demarcation of the entire
Indo Tibetan international border in the said Middle Sector
extending from the Pulu Pass to the vicinity of the Mayum la
and Marnyak La passes should commence from Pulu Pass,
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=14746&article=Tibet+is+the+key&t=1&c=1http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=14746&article=Tibet+is+the+key&t=1&c=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZrWOO3w_JQhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/j-n-dixit-489124.htmlhttp://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=14746&article=Tibet+is+the+key&t=1&c=1http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=14746&article=Tibet+is+the+key&t=1&c=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZrWOO3w_JQhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/j-n-dixit-489124.html8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
21/55
21
wherein the Altyn Tagh range in northwestern Tibet running
southwest to northeast, converges with the Kuen Lun range
in Kashmir which runs southeast to northwest, and continue
along the Ridges wherein are situate the Mavang Kangri and
Aling Kangri peaks which geographically and historically
divide and separate the highlands of Kashmir from the
Tibetan plateau , and culminate in the vicinity of the Mayum
La and Marnyak La. According to Rolf Alfred Stein author of
Tibetan Civilization, the area of Shang Shung was not
historically a part of Tibet and was a distinctly foreign
territory to the Tibetans. According to Rolf Alfred Stein9 :
Then further west, The
Tibetans encountered a
distinctly foreign nation. -
Shangshung, with its capital at
Khyunglung. Mt. Kaila (Tise )
and Lake Manasarovar formed
part of this country., whose
language has come down to us
through early documents.
Though still unidentified, it
seems to be Indo European.
Geographically the country was
certainly open to India, both
9 Tibetan Civilization by R.A. Stein Faber and Faber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
22/55
22
through Nepal and by way of
Kashmir and Ladakh. Kaila is
a holy place for the Indians, who
make pilgrimages to it. No one
knows how long they have done
so, but the cult may well go
back to the times when
Shangshung was still
independent of Tibet.
How far Shangshung stretched
to the north , east and west is a
mystery. We have already had
an occasion to remark that
Shangshung, embracing Kaila
sacred Mount of the Hindus,
may once have had a religion
largely borrowed from
Hinduism. The situation may
even have lasted for quite a
long time. In fact, about 950,
the Hindu King of Kabul had a
statue of Viu, of the Kashmiri
type (with three heads), which
he claimed had been given him
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
23/55
23
by the king of the Bhota
(Tibetans) who, in turn had
obtained it from Kaila.
Ladakh was historically an independent state comprising a
vast area. But later, towards the end of the tenth centuary
A.D., it was divested of most of her territory by a family
partition. Despite that, in the tenth century, the traditional
boundary of Ladakh with Tibet was well known and
recognised by tradition. There was manifold proof of this. A
chronicle of Ladakh compiled in the 17th century called the
La dvags rgyal rabs, meaning the Royal Chronicle of the
Kings of Ladakh recorded that this boundary was traditional
and well-known. The first part of the Chronicle was written in
the years 1610 -1640, and the second half towards the end
of the 17th century. The work has been translated into English
by A. H. Francke and published in 1926 in Calcutta titled the
Antiquities of Indian Tibet . In volume 2, the Ladakhi
Chronicle describes the partition by King Sykid-Ida-ngeema-
gon of his kingdom between his three sons, and then the
chronicle described the extent of territory secured by that
son. The following quotation is from page 94 of this book:
He gave to each of his sons a
separate kingdom, viz., to the
eldest Dpal-gyi-ngon, Maryul
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
24/55
24
of Mnah-ris, the inhabitants
using black bows; ru-thogs of
the east and the Gold-mine of
Hgog; nearer this way Lde-
mchog-dkar-po; at the
frontier ra-ba-dmar-po; Wam-
le, to the top of the pass of
the Yi-mig rock..
From a perusal of the aforesaid work, It is obvious and
evident that Rudokh was an integral part of Ladakh and even
after the family partition, Rudokh continued to be part of
Ladakh. Maryul meaning lowlands was a name given to a
part of Ladakh. Even at that time, i.e. in the 10th century,
Rudokh was an integral part of Ladakh and Lde-mchog-dkar-
po, i.e. Demchok was also an integral part of Ladakh. Even
the 1684 Treaty of Temisgang signed between Tibet and
Ladakh recognised Minser in the area around the
Manasarovara lake as part of Ladakh. During subsequent
Dogra rule, British India rule and Independence, it remains
under Indias sovereignty. Copy of Freedom of Expression in
Maps, A.G. Noorani is annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE P.10.( 65-69 )
10. The November 14, 1962 unanimous resolution of the
Parliament of India vowing to recover every inch of land
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
25/55
25
occupied by China howsoever long or hard the struggle may
be needs to be expeditiously and emergently fulfilled. The
proud people of India have a right to know from the
Respondent Number 1 herein the information and details
pertaining to the action taken so far by 1st Respondent herein
to liberate and recover the vast areas in India under Chinese
illegal occupation, pursuant to the aforesaid 1962 resolution
of the Parliament of India which the 1st Respondent herein is
bound to implement at the earliest with out any further delay
by peaceful ways if possible but with out ruling out
alternate means by use of force if necessary come what may
and throw the Chinese out to quote the aforesaid Mr.
Jawaharlal Nehru.
11. The act of the respondent Number 1 of illegally giving
away large areas of the state of Kashmir to the Chinese by
arbitrarily depicting large areas which had been previously
included in the colour wash in the maps of Kashmir
pertaining to the period of the commencement of the
Constitution of India and also altogether doing away with the
border of Kashmir with what was then the Soviet Union and
now survives as the territory of Gorno Badakhshan
administered by Tajikistan is illegal , and null and void since,
the power of the Union Parliament under Article 3 of the
Constitution of India to alter the name , area and boundaries
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
26/55
26
of the state has been subjected to a limitation by virtue of a
proviso to the article:
Provided further that no bill providing
for increasing or diminishing the area
of the state of Jammu and Kashmir or
altering the name or boundary of
that state shall be introduced in the
parliament without the consent of the
legislature of that state10.
According to Justice Adarsh Sein Anand, former Chief Justice
of India and author of the Constitution of Jammu and
Kashmir:
It is a part of our Constitution that
we cannot touch Kashmr without the
consent of Kashmirs elected
Assembly, reaffirmed Mr. Nehru, the
prime Minister of India in 1961.11 This
being so, the power of the Union
Parliament to dispose of the territory
of the state in consequence of an
international agreement or treaty,
under Article 253 is also limited in
10 Constitution(Application to Jammu and Kashmir)Order , 1954;C.O.48,section2(2)11 Amrit bazaar Patrika, Calcutta 10.10.1961
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
27/55
27
regard to Kashmir . No Bill effecting
the disposition of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir is valid unless passed
with the previous consent of the
State Government. And indeed in the
words of Professor Gledhill, the
treaty making power cannot be used
to do what the Constitution otherwise
forbids .12
12. As Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru himself had quite
aptly stated regarding the spuriousness of the Chinese
claims on territory which is an integral part of India like
Indias beloved Aksai Chin:
I must confess that this complete
subversion of facts and an attempt
to make falsehood appear as truth
and truth as falsehood had
amazed me, because nothing can
be more baseless than what the
Chinese have been saying13.
It is not inconceivable that China
and the Soviet Union may not
12The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir by Justice Adarsh Sein Anand, 6th Edn. 2010 Published by UniversalLaw Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd. C-FF-1A, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, Delhi 110033.13 The Times of India, November 9, 1962
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
28/55
28
continue to be as friendly as they
are now. Certainly it is conceivable
that our relations with China may
worsenof course, both the
Soviet Union and China are
expansive. They are expansive for
evils other than communism,
though communism may be made
a tool for the purposewe are
perhaps facing a new period of
such expansionism. Let us
consider that and fashion our
policy to prevent it coming in the
way of our interests or other
interests that we consider
important14.
13. The occasion and chance came for the said Mr. Nehru to
redeem his pledge and fulfill and discharge his solemn
promise to the Nation of India in the Memorandum of July
1954, which inter alia stated that the frontier should be
considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to
discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be
spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should
have Check posts in such places as might be considered
14 Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru,Vol 26, p. 477.
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
29/55
29
disputed areas, pertinently, when the Director of the
Intelligence Bureau, B.N. Mullik had rightly recommended the
setting of new posts in Kashmir in 1959, at inter alia Sarigh
Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo, which was discussed in
January 1959 at a meeting in the external affairs Ministry in
the presence of Gen Thimayya, Chief of the Army staff and
the Foreign Secretary. Both the Army Chief and the Foreign
Secretary had opposed the proposal to open border posts at
inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo though
Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo are situate deep
inside Kashmir even according to the illegal obnoxious
Nehru Line because according to them, the opening of the
said posts would provoke the Chinese, and create tension.
The anti-national attitude of the External Affairs Ministry was
that this part of the territory was useless to India. Even if
the Chinese did not encroach into it, India could not make
any use of it. The boundary had not been demarcated and
had been shifted more than once by the British. Thus Nehru
and his fellow Anti-National coterie of bureaucrats did not
have neither the conviction nor care to have even an iota of
intention to protect even the territory which was admittedly
part of India even according to the albeit obnoxious , illegal,
arbitrary , ingenious and unilaterally stealthily drawn Nehru
Line of 1954 which Mr. Nehru was duty bound to protect,
sitting as he was in the chair of the Prime Minister of India,
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
30/55
30
which in the first place was purportedly drawn well in the
deep interior of Kashmir allegedly to only serve the purpose
of a firm and definite frontier not open to discussion with
any body as issued in Nehrus memorandum of July 1954,
and in 1958 we have the External Affairs Ministry blatantly
colluding with the Chinese and illegally espousing the cause
of the Chinese to the detriment of India by disputing that
the area was intrinsically and inherently an inalienable part
of Kashmir by the statement the boundary had not been
demarcated and had been shifted more than once by the
Britishers. Also pertinently, Nehru by his blatant and wilful
refusal of permission to open posts at inter alia Sarigh
Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo violated, contravened and
defied his own solemn undertaking to the nation in his 1 July
1954 Memorandum wherein he had unequivocally stated that
a system of check posts should be spread along this entire
frontier. More especially, we should have check posts in such
places as might be considered disputed areas, which only
shows how unscrupulous and untrustworthy a person, he was
and how much unfit he was to hold the office of the Prime
Minister of India.
14. The same sordid state of affairs of apathy and lethargy
continues to prevail even to this day. Recently, during
November 2009 the 1st Respondent herein and the 2nd
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
31/55
31
Respondent herein have meekly capitulated and succumbed
to the arrogant threats and intimidations of the Chinese army
and stopped work on an 8-km road project being
constructed because the local residents i.e. Citizens of India
had been demanding a link to improve road connectivity and
provide employment to local residents, under the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in Demchok,
near Rudokh, in near-eastern historic Ladakh after the
Chinese army objected, though Demchok like Haji Langar is
very much situate within the ambit and purview of even the
albeit illegal Line published as the alleged border of
Kashmir in 1954 and the 1st Respondent herein and the 2nd
Respondent herein are bound in view of the solemn
undertaking made in the said July 1954 memorandum that
the frontier should be considered a firm and definite one,
which is not open to discussion with any one, to refute and
repudiate the Chinese and complete the road project with
only increased vigour come what may and treat and react to
the Chinese intimidation with the disgust and contempt that
it deserves! Rather, It is ridiculous and absurd, the fact that
the 1st Respondent herein and the 2nd Respondent herein
have subserviently and with out an iota of shame
capitulated and succumbed to the arrogant Chinese
intimidations and threats. And the same has resulted inter
alia in the blatant violation of the fundamental rights and
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
32/55
32
human rights of these citizens of India residing in far fledged
and remote difficult terrain including the right to life
enshrined in inter alia Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and this honourable Apex court has
unequivocally held that inaccessibility to road for citizens
residing in far fledged and remote difficult terrain is a
blatant violation of the fundamental right to life in State of
Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Umed Ram Sharma and
others (1986) 2 SCC 68 (74), wherein the honourable
Supreme Court has held that right to life embraces not only
physical existence of life but the quality of life and for
residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life
itself...Denial of that right would be denial of the life as
understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the
Constitution. Copy of News Report dt. 30.11.2009 in the
Indian Express is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE
P.11(70-71).
15. Again, during September October 2010, the Chinese had
encroached into the Gombir area near Demchok in Kashmir and
intimidated and threatened the citizens residing in that part of this
country and the Civilian workers who were constructing a shed
which was approved at an estimated cost of Rs 2 lakh to be built
at village Gombir under the Border Area Development Project of
the Ministry of Home Affairs for the utility of the public, the plan
for which was cleared by the state Rural Development
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
33/55
33
Department, and were successful in preventing the construction.
The state government had planned construction of seven link-
roads in Nyoma and Demchok areas to increase connectivity and
provide job opportunity to the people of the remote region. Copy
of News Report dt. 10.1.2011 in the Indian Express is annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P.12(72-74).
16. The respondent number 1 herein has been colluding
with the Chinese and trying hard to suppress the incursions
and supporting the Chinese actions by even going out of
their way to claim that in fact there had been no incursions
and there was a difference of perception as to where the line
of Control was! This, after the bogus Memorandum issued to
the nation on 1, July 1954 which emphasized that the
frontier should be considered a firm and definite one, which
is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check
posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More
especially, we should have Check posts in such places as
might be considered disputed areas, pursuant to which to
the illegal line drawn as the alleged border of Kashmir was
published in the first place. Earlier, the Chinese had
encroached into the Chicken Neck an area of Sikkim , which
fact was exposed by three journalists who did a very
commendable job in highlighting the Chinese incursions into
that part of India, and the respondent number 1 herein,
furious that the incursions had been leaked out to the proud
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
34/55
34
people of India, lost no time in intimidating the journalists for
their audacity to expose the Chinese incursions and even
threatened to initiate legal action against them and register
a first information report against them. The Petitioner herein
issued a legal notice dated 7.10.2009 to inter alia the first
respondent calling upon the first respondent to desist from
taking the threatened foolish action, and after the
respondent number 1 received the same, The respondent
number 1 herein obviously became wiser. Pertinently,
apropos Demchok, it is ironic that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
had unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms in the 17
Para Memorandum dated 1, July 1954 that,
check-posts are necessary not
only to control traffic, prevent
unauthorized infiltration but as
symbols of Indias frontier. As
Demchok is considered by the
Chinese as a disputed territory,
we should locate a check post
there. So also at Tsang
Chokla.
17. It is inevitable that the obnoxious Nehru Line which
Nehru unilaterally and arbitrarily published out of the blue for
the first time in 1954 in accordance with his own perverted
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
35/55
35
whims and fancies and is blatantly ultra vires the
Constitution of India and has absolutely no legal sanctity, and
is ab initio illegal, will be repudiated by the proud people of
India. The only solace now for the proud people of India is
that the obnoxious Nehru line is so bereft of legal sanctity,
and is ab initio illegal, and null and void and the same is
awaiting formal repudiation and consequential denunciation
of this wicked and collusive act of the respondent number 1
herein. Now the Government of India is overtly and covertly
illegally colluding and conspiring with the Chinese to
compromise even this area within the so called frontier which
was meant to be considered a firm and definite one, not
open to discussion with any one by engaging in so-called
border talks using the aforesaid 1954 Nehru Line as the
basis, with the Chinese militarily occupying Tibet and East
Turkistan, solely and exclusively to facilitate the ulterior
purpose of handing over of Indias beloved inalienable Aksai
Chin to the Chinese.
18. When even the very alleged purported misconceived
reason given by Mr. Nehru at the outset for the publication in
1954 of the new maps illegally and at the cost of the
territorial integrity of Kashmir and with out following the
procedure established in law, viz. that the frontier should
be considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
36/55
36
discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be
spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should
have Check posts in such places as might be considered
disputed areas, had been wilfully and blatantly time and
again been contravened by Mr. Nehru by his treacherous
and willful refusal to establish new posts in Kashmir in 1959,
at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo in north
eastern Kashmir, the very purported initial misconceived
objective and purpose of the illegal 1954 Nehru Line,
which even otherwise was ab-initio illegal, null and void and
ultra vires Article 1(2)(3) and Entry 15 in the First Schedule
of the Constitution of India as well as Section (4) of the
Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, had been defeated and
the same has been rendered meaningless, and the entire
procedure adopted in 1954 was a colourable exercise of
power. Strangely, even The 2nd Respondent herein has
with out application of mind, blindly and mechanically
copied the manner in which the 3rd Respondent herein has
been since 1954 illegally depicting the external borders of
India, though the said illegal act of the 3 rd Respondent
herein is not at all legally binding on the 2nd Respondent
herein in view of the distinct status of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir and the explicit enumeration of the territorial
extent of Kashmir in Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu
and Kashmir.
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htmhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
37/55
37
19. The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice dated
17.11.2010 to be issued to the respondents herein calling
upon all the respondents to apologise to the proud Nation
of India for colluding with the Chinese and willfully depicting
inter alia the northern border of Kashmir wrongly and thus
insulting the oblivious Indians, and further consequently
desist from depicting the northern border of Kashmir in the
pernicious manner the 2nd respondent has been illegally
depicting since 1954 when a new map depicting the northern
alleged border of Kashmir was illegally published out of the
blue under the false guise of a firm and definite frontier, not
open to discussion with any one, and revert the depiction of
the northern boundary of Kashmir to the true historic and
natural border of Kashmir to the north of Dafdar in the
Taghdumbash Pamir area of Kanjut where India shares a
border with Tajikistan administered Gorno Badakhshan, and
on the crests of the watershed of the Kuen Lun range and
beyond, wherein are inter alia the Kukalang (north of
Bazardara in Raskam in Kanjut), Yangi (north of Kulanaldi),
Kilian including Kathai Tam (north of Shahidulla), Snj La
(north of Ali Nazar in Ladakh) and Hindutash (north of
Sumgal) passes in Kashmir, and beyond, within a period of
60 days from the date of receipt of this Notice, failing which,
the petitioner herein would be constrained to initiate the
necessary action against the respondents herein in
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
38/55
38
accordance with law to their peril and with out further
notice, but the respondents have failed to take the necessary
positive action after receipt of the legal notice . Copy of legal
notice dated 17.11.2010is annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE P.13. (75)
20. The Petitioner is approaching this Honourable Court for
a declaration that the new map of Kashmir issued in the
year 1954 pursuant to the Memorandum dated 1, July 1954
issued by the respondent number 1 herein, as ab initio illegal
and null and void and ultra vires Article 1 (2) (3) and Entry
15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India as well as
Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and
hence as unconstitutional and non-est for inter alia the
following Grounds:
GROUNDS
i) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 has no legal
sanctity whatsoever and is perverse and has been
issued in a manner not known to law and the whole
proceedings are vitiated.
ii) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 arbitrarily and
illegally depict even the area which is included in the
colour wash in the official maps attached to the 2 White
Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htmhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
39/55
39
Government of India's Ministry of States, headed,
incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the
authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney which
bind it in law, which ipso facto prove that the area is an
integral part of Kashmir, as not part of Kashmir.
iii) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 illegally does not
depict the border of Kashmir with territory previously
administered by the Soviet Union in the Gorno
Badakhshan area when in spite of the fact that even
Mr. Nehru had in no uncertain terms reiterated in his
telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime
Minister, Clement Attlee, that "Kashmir's Northern
frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those
of three countries, Afghanistan, `the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics' and `China' ". Besides, also, the
Maharaja Hari Singh states in his correspondence with
Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947,
Besides, my State has a common boundary with the
Soviet Republic and China.
iv) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 is contradictory
to the assertion and stance of the 1st respondent in
the publication, viz., `Atlas of the Northern Frontier of
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.html8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
40/55
40
India', wherein where in it is unequivocally stated by 1st
Respondent herein in the map at page 20 that the
British cartographers gave a dark shade for areas only
where they had their jurisdiction and in the rest of
India, only a lighter shade was used. In the very same
publication which also portrays an ancient old East
Asian map titled Map of the Western Regions (held by
the Chinese) appended to the Hsi-yu-tu-chih, compiled
on the orders of Emperor Chien-lung in 1762, which
depicts the southern boundary of East Turkistan with
India along the Kuen Lun Range, the 1st Respondent
herein has unequivocally admitted that "The map
makes clear that Sinkiang extended in the south only
up to the Kuen Lun Range". The respondent number 1
is thus esstopped from changing their stance.
v) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 ignores the
crucial corroborative contemporary evidence and
unanimous conclusions that the southern border of East
Turkistan never even extended to the south beyond the
northern foothills of the Kuen Lun range in Kashmir. The
Chinese completed the reconquest of Eastern Turkistan
in 1878. Before they lost it in 1863, their practical
authority, as Ney Elias the British Joint Commissioner
http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/2010/03/lun_29.htmlhttp://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/2010/03/lun_29.htmlhttp://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/2010/03/lun_29.htmlhttp://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/2010/03/lun_29.html8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
41/55
41
in Leh from the end of the 1870s to 1885, and Francis
Younghusband consistently maintained, had never
extended south of their outposts at Snj and Kilian
along the northern foothills of the Kuenlun range. Nor
did they establish a known presence to the south of the
line of outposts in the twelve years immediately
following their return. Ney Elias who had been Joint
Commissioner in Ladakh for several years noted on 21
September 1889 that he had met the Chinese in 1879
and 1880 when he visited Kashgar. they told me that
they considered their line of chatze, or posts, as their
frontier viz. , Kugiar, Kilian, Sanju, Kiria, etc.- and that
they had no concern with what lay beyond the
mountainsi.e. the Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir
wherein are situate the Hindutash pass and Snj La
passes in Kashmir and the area in the highlands of
Kashmir between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun ranges.
According to Ramsay, One Musa , nephew of the head
man (Turdi Kul) of the Kirghiz who marauded the area
around the Shahidulla Fort and the Raskam sought help
from the Chinese Amban at Yarkand. The Amban
replied that the Chinese frontier extended only to the
Kilian and Sanju passes he could do nothing for us so
long as we remained at Shahidulla and he could not
take notice of raids committed on us beyond the
http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
42/55
42
Chinese frontier. Clearly, in 1889, the Kuen Lun was
regarded as marking the southern frontier of East
Turkistan. As Alder wrote, the Chinese after return to
Sinkiang in 1878, claimed up to the Kilian, Kogyar, and
Sanju passes north of the Kuen Luen15. The Amban
directed the Kirghiz to the authorities in Ladakh since
no Chinese official ever comes to Ladakh. Musa was
sent to Ladakh to ask for assistance, where he said,
The fort at Shahidulla belongs to the Kashmir state,
but as it is at present in ruins, we desire to be given
the money to rebuild it16 Though, Ramsay later stated
that Musa was not reliable and was altering his
statements, it was confirmed that the Amban did say
that the frontier was at the southern base of the Kilian
pass in the Kuen Lun range, and that the Turdi Kol was
certainly told by the Chinese Amban that Shahidulla
was not in Chinese territory17
Younghusband arrived
in Shahidulah on 21 August 1889 and met the Turdi Kol,
the Kirghiz chief himself rather than Musa. Two Chinese
officials , the Kargilik and the Yarkand Amban had told
him that Shahidulla was British territory i.e. part of the
territory of Kashmir. He also examined the Shahidullah
Fort.
15 Alder, British Indias Northern Frontier, P.27816Statement of Musa Kirghiz of Shahidullah recorded by Ramsey on 25 May 1889, Foreign SecretF., July 1889, No. 20517Foreign Secret F., July 1889, No. 203-30
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
43/55
43
vi) The inference drawn by present day writers or scholars
on the northeastern border of Kashmir with Khotn
pertaining to the period of the commencement of the
Constitution of India is that the border of Kashmir with
Khotn was the Kuen Lun range. According to Dorothy
Woodman, author of Himalayan Frontiers published in
1969:
Similarly, the findings of the survey
of W.H. Johnson , who was the Civil
Assistant of the Trigonometrical
Survey of India, in July 1865,
established certain important
pertinent points. "Brinjga was in his
view the boundary post"18 (near the
Karanghu Tagh Peak north of
Khushlashlangar, in the Kuen Lun in
Ladakh ), thus implying "that the
boundary lay along the Kuen Lun
Range". Johnsons findings
demonstrated that the whole of the
Kara Kash valley was part of the
territory of Kashmir and an integral
part of the territory of Kashmir. "He
18Report of the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, 1866 P.6.
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
44/55
44
noted where the Chinese boundary
post was accepted. At Yangi Langar,
three marches from Khotan, he
noticed that there were a few fruit
trees at this place which originally
was a post or guard house of the
Chinese".
Again, to quote from Himalayan Battleground by
Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A.
Huttenback, page 116:19
The Khan wrote Johnson that he had
dispatched his Wazier, Saifulla Khoja to
meet me at Bringja, the first
encampment beyond the Ladakh
boundary for the purpose of escorting me
thence to Ilchi. Brinjga is a few miles
southeast of Karanghutagh; thus the
Khotan ruler accepted the Kunlun range
as the southern boundary of his
dominion. Johnson noted that the Qara
Qash valley was within the territory of
the Maharaja of Kashmir.
According to W.H. Johnson,
19Himalayan Battleground by Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, published by Fredreick A.Praeger, 1963 New York
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
45/55
45
the last portion of the route to Shadulla
(Shahidulla in north-eastern Kashmir) is
particularly pleasant, being the whole of the
Karakash valley which is wide and even, and
shut in either side by rugged mountains. On this
route I noticed numerous extensive plateaux
near the river, covered with wood and long
grass. These being within the territory of the
Maharaja of Kashmir, could easily be brought
under cultivation by Ladakhees and others, if
they could be induced and encouraged to do so
by the Kashmeer Government. The
establishment of villages and habitations on this
river would be important in many points of view,
but chiefly in keeping the route open from the
attacks of the Khergiz robbers.
The findings of the survey of W.H. Johnson hold good to
this day and nothing at all has changed legally or
otherwise. The map pertaining to the findings of the
survey of W.H. Johnson who was the Civil Assistant of
the Trigonometrical Survey of India and also later the
Wazir of the Ladakh Wazarat, in July 1865
unequivocally depicts the northern border of Kashmir
with Khotan in the area of the historic Hindutash and
http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/http://hindutashravi.blogspot.com/8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
46/55
46
Sanju passes in north eastern Kashmir, on the crests of
the Kuen Lun range not withstanding the fact that
even the said map does not reflect the true findings
pertaining to the survey of W.H. Johnson. Colonel
Walker who was the Surveyor General in 1867, whose
motives are suspect, confessed and insisted that the
map as published was far different from Johnsons
Original. According to Dorothy Woodman, author of
Himalayan Frontiers, the map indicates that even in
1865 that area was part of India and that the
customary boundary was well known.
vi) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 is ultra vires the
Constitution of India and the Constitution of the state
of Jammu and Kashmir since the said map has been
issued with out the prerequisite amendment of the
Constitution of India and the Constitution of Jammu and
Kashmir which is a sine qua non, and the prerequisite
consent of the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir was
also not obtained since the map necessarily pertained
to the territorial extent of the state of Kashmir, and as
per the proviso to Article 3, any change in the territorial
extent of the State can be effected only after the
consent of the legislature is obtained. The power of the
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
47/55
47
Union Parliament to dispose of the territory of the state
in consequence of an international agreement or treaty,
under Article 253 is also limited in regard to Kashmir .
No Bill effecting the disposition of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir is valid unless passed with the previous
consent of the State Government.
vii) The new map published in 1954 is contradictory to
manner depicted in the Map referred to in Article 9 of
the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China and
Tibet dated the 5th July 1914 which also depicts the
southern border of Khotn and East Turkistan with
Kashmir on the Kuen Lun range in the area of
Hindutash in Kashmir as a red line
viii) The new map published in 1954 and issued pursuant to
the memorandum issued by the first respondent in
1954 does not depict inter alia the Historic Kashmiri
Kuen Lun out post at Shahidulla in spite of the fact that
the respondent number 2 herein had time and again
reiterated that Shahidulla was an integral part of
Kashmir.
ix) The new map issued pursuant to the memorandum
issued by the first respondent in 1954 had arbitrarily
and illegally not depicted large areas historically part of
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
48/55
48
the principality of Kanjut in the Raskam area and
Taghdumbash Pamir area adjoining the Kuen lun range
as part of Kashmir, when even the Manchu empire had
recognised and ignores the corroborative evidence of
inter alia McMahon. No one seems to be quiet sure
how the Kanjutis started to cultivating the Raskam
valley. The river is known by the glittering name of
Zafarshan, the gold scatterer. According to Kanjuti
traditions, as related by McMahon , the eighth ancestor
of the Mir, Shah Salim Khan pursued the nomadic
Kherghiz thieves upto Tash Khurghan and defeated
them. to celebrate this victory, Shah Salim Khan
erected a stone cairn at Dafdar and sent a trophy of a
Khirghiz head to the Chinese with a message that
Hunza territory extended as far as Dafdar. The
Kanjutis were already in effective possession of the
Raskam and no question had been raised about It. The
Mirs claims went a good deal beyond a mere right of
cultivation. He asserts that forts were built by the
Hunza people with out any objection or interference
from the Chinese at Dafdar, Qurghan, Ujadhbhai, Azar
on the Yarkand river and at three or four other places in
Raskam. 20McMahon was able to prima facie roughly
define the territorial limits of Kanjut. The boundaries of
20For. Sec.F. October1896, 533/541 (534)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_faciehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
49/55
49
Taghdumbash, Khunjerab and Raskam, as claimed by
the Kanjuts, are the following: the northern watershed
of the Taghdumbash Pamir from the Wakhijrui pass
through the Baiyik peak to Dafdar, thence across the
river to the Zankan nullah; thence through Mazar and
over the range to Urok, a point on the Yarkand river
between Sibjaida and Itakturuk. Thence it runs along
the northern watershed of the Raskam valley to the
junction of the Bazar Dara river and the Yarkand river.
From thence southwards over the mountains to the
Mustagh river leaving the Aghil Dewan and Aghil pass
within Hunza limits.21
McMahons information was
substantially corroborated in 1898 by Captain
H.P.P.Deasy who threw up a commission to devote
himself to Trans Himalayan exploration. An item of
special interest was Deasys description of the limits of
Raskam. Starting from Aghil Dewan or pass, in the
Karakoram range, the dividing line ran north-east to
Bazar Dara, where it met the Yarkand river. From there
the line ran along the northern watershed of the
Raskam valley to Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir, to
the north of the mills at that place, and thence to the
Baiyik peak. Deasy also came upon clear evidence of
what could only have been Kanjuti occupation. South of
21For. Sec. F.July 1898,306/347 (327)
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
50/55
50
Azgar many ruins of houses, old irrigation channels
and fields now no longer tilted , testify to Raskam
having formerly been inhabited and cultivated. Anyone
familiar with the care with which the Kanjuts cultivate
every available strip of land in their own Hunza would
have no hesitation in regarding this as proof of long
standing Kanjuti occupation. The remains could not
have been attributed to the Kirghiz; they were
unfamiliar with the state of art.22 "Seven locations in
the Raskam were involved. Azgar and Ursur on the right
bank, and five others on the left, that is on the
Mustagh-Karakoram side-Kukbash, Kirajilga, Ophrang,
Uroklok, and Oitughrak, extending from Sarakamish,
north of Kunjerab pass to Bazar Dara, north of the
Arghil pass , comprising an area of about 3000 acres.
x) The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled under
the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in
the Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890
states at page 493 apropos Khotn, A province of the
Chinese Empire lying to the north of the Eastern
Kuenlun range, which here forms the boundary of
Ladk. Apropos Yrkand, the very same The Gazetteer
of Kashmr and Ladk states at Page 860, The
Yrkand river rises north of the Karakoram pass. Its
22For. Sec. F. August 1899, 168/201 (175)
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
51/55
51
course is for the first 30 miles north east to Mlikshh.
Thence north west for 56 miles to Kirghiz Jungle. From
Kirghiz Jungle it flows 15 miles west to Kulanuldi camp.
Up to this point its course is followed by the Kugiar (or
winter) route from Ladk to Yrkand. (maintained by
the Government of Kashmir) Beyond Kulanuldi it
continues west for some distance, and then takes a
sudden bend to the north into Yrkand territory.
Averment:
21. That The petitioner herein has not filed any other
similar petition in any Honourable High Court or this
honourable Court on the subject matter of this petition.
PRAYER
Under these circumstances the petitioner humbly seeks
that this Honourable Court be pleased to:
a) to issue a writ of declaration, order or direction
declaring that the new map of Kashmir issued in
the year 1954 pursuant to the Memorandum
dated 1, July 1954 issued by the respondent
number 1 herein , as ab initio illegal and null and
void and ultra vires Article 1 (2) (3) and Entry 15
in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India as
well as Section (4) of the Constitution of Jammu
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htmhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
52/55
52
and Kashmir and hence as unconstitutional and
non-est.
b) And consequently pass such further or other
orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case award costs
and thus render justice.
FILED BY:NEW DELHIDRAWN ON: 7.3.2011FILED ON: 7.3.2011
P.V.Ravi Chandran,(Party-in-Person)
Advocate, Madras
E. No 407 of 19935, Divya Krupa,1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095Ph. 04423783059
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
53/55
53
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (Civil )No. 127 of 2011
(Petition Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India)
P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,5, Divya Krupa,1st Street Extn.Sri Krishna Nagar,Maduravayal,Chennai 600095 ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India,Through the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs,Department of Home Affairs,North Block, Central Secretariat,Nav Dehli 110001.And 2 others . Respondents
PAPER BOOK
(For Index Please See Inside)
P.V.RAVI CHANDRANPETITIONER IN PERSON
Advocate, Madras5, Divya Krupa, 1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravayal,Chennai 600095
Ph. 04423783059
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
54/55
54
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (Civil )No. 127 of 2011
(Petition Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India)
P.V.Ravi ChandranAdvocate,E. No 407 of 19935, Divya Krupa,
1
st
Street Extn.Sri Krishna Nagar,Maduravayal,Chennai 600095 ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Union of India,
Through the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs,Department of Home Affairs,North Block, Central Secretariat,Nav Dehli 110001.
2. The State of Jammu and KashmirRepresented by its Chief Secretary,Department of Home,Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,Jammu and Kashmir
3. The Surveyor General of India,Survey of IndiaHathibarkala EstateDehra Dun 248001,Uttaranchal . Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER
I, P.V. Ravi Chandran, Advocate, son of
Mahadevapandal Soolapani Warrier, aged about 44 years
residing at No 5, Divya Krupa, 1st Street Extn., Sri Krishna
8/7/2019 P.V.Ravi Chandran vs Union of India and 2 Others
55/55
55
Nagar, Maduravayal, Chennai 600095, now come down to
Dehli do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as
follows:
1. I am the Petitioner herein and I am fully acquainted with
the facts of the case. As such, I am competent to swear to
this affidavit.
2. I have drafted and Perused the Synopsis and List of
Dates (Pages B to ) and Writ Petition (Paras 1 to 21 and
Pages 1 to___] and have understood the contents therein. I
submit that the facts stated therein are true to the best of
my knowledge borne out by records and the information
received by me is believed to be true.
3. I further submit that the copies of the documents filed as
annexures along with this Writ Petition are true copies of
the originals.
4. I further state that what is stated in the aforesaid
paragraphs of my affidavit is true to my knowledge and
belief, and no part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed or suppressed.
Verified at Nav Dehli on this the 7th day of March 2011
DEPONENT