news details |
|
|
| Panchayat poll makes Apex Court to defer debate on Article 35-A | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 1: It was expected after the counsels of the Kashmir centric political parties, the PDP and the National Conference, had pleaded for deferment of the petitions challenging the validity of Article 35-Aon the plea that they want peacein Kashmir during panchayat poll'. The Supreme Court has adjourned to January next year the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of Article 35 A, which provides special rights and privileges to natives of Jammu and Kashmir, after taking note of submissions of the Centre and the state government that there was a law and order problem in the state.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was informed by Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Jammu and Kashmir government respectively that in view of the impending eight-phased local body elections and law and order situation in the state, the hearing be deferred.
The Kashmir centric politicians and the separatists should be grateful to Governor Malik and his predecessor Vohra who had supported deferment of the case because of the panchayat poll being round the corner. And the Apex Court accepted the Governor's plea."Let the elections take place. We are told that there is a law and order problem," the bench which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said while adjourning the hearing to the second week of January on petitions challenging Article 35 A. Article 35-A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.
The Article 35-A does not only allow non state subjects to seek jobs in any state Government departments but their wards too are denied admission in institutions run by the state Government. This Article is biased against women. Any state subject women who marries a non state subject men loses her citizenship rights and she is not allowed to buy immovable property. Besides this non state
subjects cannot vote for the Assembly but for the Lok Sabha polls. It seems that when the case is taken up the Apex court it may recommend to the Government to make suitable amendments so that it is not biased against women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
