The petition contends that the presidential order was issued pursuant to the "concurrence" of the government of Jammu and Kashmir, despite in the absence of an elected government in the state, under the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, an affront on the Constitution and a blatant attack on the federal nature of the Constitution and freedom of people of the state.
"The Governor of State of Jammu and Kashmir kept the entire nation in the dark and the country was not informed that such a drastic action against the interest of the state is being taken and the Amaranth pilgrims were asked to interrupt their religious pilgrimage," said the petition.
More than a dozen petitions have been already filed in the apex court in connection with Jammu and Kashmir.
The petition contended that imposition of the President's Rule for the abrogation of Article 370 was an illegal and unconstitutional exercise of the Constitution's Article 356.
The petition claimed that state of Jammu and Kashmir had a separate Constitution and the Parliament had limited scope to enact legislation for the state and "therefore by a Parliamentary Act, the powers given to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by its own Constitution could not have been abrogated by merely taking away Article 370 by the impugned legislation".
Citing the situation of complete lockdown, the petition contends it clearly shows that a constitutional change has been enacted without seeking the approval of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as mandated by the proviso to sub-clause 3 of Article 370.
"Since coming in force of the Constitution of India several reorganization of states have taken place and in none of the Reorganization Acts, the Acts have been enacted by the Parliament without seeking the approval of the state legislature concerned," the petition said.
( With inputs from IANS )