news details |
|
|
| BJP again ditches J-K daughters, refugees from Pak | | Article 35-A | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 14: Daughters of Jammu and Kashmir, refugees from Pakistan and members of the Jammu-based Valmiki Samaj were hoping that the BJP on Monday would oppose Article 35-A and they would finally all citizenship rights in the state which are available to the so-called permanent male subjects of the state, but the BJP today again dashed all their hopes to the ground, thus suggesting that it could go to any extent to save its coalition with the PDP.
That the Jammu and Kashmir Government would oppose all the petitions against Article 35-A and it did happen. Representing the Jammu and Kashmir government of which the BJP is a part, advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said that "SC has already settled the issue by ruling that Article 370 of the Constitution has already attained permanent status".
"In any event as the issue required interpretation of various constitutional provisions, let there be no interim order," Dwivedi appealed to the bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra.
However, it was the BJP-led NDA Government at the Centre, hich hit daughters of Jammu and Kashmir, Hindu-Sikh refugees from Pakistan and members of the Jammu-based Valmiki Samaj below the belt. It advanced a spurious argument to make the SC defer the hearing on Article 35-A. The Union Government told the bench that "the matter is very sensitive and since the interlocutor is making efforts for a solution, the court should not pass any interim order at present as it would be counter productive". In other words, both the Union Government and Jammu and Kashmir Government worked in tandem and got the hearing on the unconstitutional Article 35-A deferred till August 16.
Counsel of the petitioner, Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar countered both the Union Government and Jammu and Kashmir Government, saying that "It is a strange situation in Jammu and Kashmir as persons from Pakistan can come and settle in the state under a law but those who have been staying for generations cannot even get a government job". But his rational and national arguments were opposed both the governments.
What has the interlocutor Dineshwar Sharma do with the relations of New Delhi vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir and the people's rights in the state? He is just an interlocutor and he has no authority to influence the working of the Supreme Court whose duty it is to uphold the sanctity of the Indian Constitution and apply its Preamble that grants equal rights to all Indians all over the country. By invoking the office of the interlocutor to get the hearing deferred, the BJP has further alienated its own constituency and it will pay through its nose for its politics of opportunism.
Four petitions demanding scrapping of Article 35A in Jammu and Kashmir were listed before a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud. The main petition was filed by "We the Citizens", a Delhi-based NGO in 2014. Three more petitions were also filed challenging the Article but were later clubbed with the main one.
The apex court today only asked parties to complete pleadings in the case and posted it for hearing on August 6.
Article 35A of the constitution empowers Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define the state's "permanent residents" and their special rights and privileges. It was added to the constitution through a presidential order of 1954 on May 14 bypassing the Parliament. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
