news details |
|
|
| Fall of PDP-BJP Govt rattles Kashmir | | Fate of 35-A | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 6: The Supreme Court of India is all set to hear several PILs against Article 35-A in the first week of August. But the fall of the PDP-BJP coalition government has, according to reports from Kashmir, "brought the focus back on legal battle for protection of Article 35-A, which empowers J&K legislature to define permanent residents and allows them exclusive right to buy land in the state".
A report quoting senior PDP leader and former minister Naeem Akhtar has said: "All eyes will be on the defence the state mounts under Governor's rule when the case comes up for hearing in the Supreme Court next month. We expect the Governor to ask his government to fight the case with same zeal like we had done. The state has a strong case and we should not be worried but the only thing is that we should not let it be decided by default and in such a scenario it can take us to the point of no return".
A PIL challenging the Article was filed by Delhi-based NGO "We the Citizens" in 2014. Later on, three more PILs seeking repeal of Article 35-A were also admitted by the apex court. Now, all these three petitions stand clubbed with the one filed by "We the Citizens".
Article 35A is a provision inserted in the Indian constitution illegally or without taking the Parliament into confidence. This unconstitutional Article, which is not part of the main body of the Constitution but part of an appendix, grants exclusive state subject (full citizenship) rights and other privileges to permanent residents of the state.
This provision was added to the constitution through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. It was issued in a hush hush manner by the first president of India, Rajendra Prasad, on May 14, 1954.
It needs to be noted that the J&K constitution of 1957, which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 17, 1956, defines "a permanent resident as a person who was born or settled in the state before May 14, 1954, or who has been a resident in the state for 10 years and had 'lawfully acquired' immovable property in the state before that".
A report from Kashmir suggests that "a top official has disclosed that directions have gone to authorities concerned to study the case in detail to prepare for the next hearing".
"We will first study what was the defense of the previous government and accordingly prepare," the official was quoted as saying.
Last year when the case came up for hearing in the Court, the Government of India decided not to support the former PDP-led state government stand seeking dismissal of the petition. On the contrary, Attorney general, KK Venugopal, who appeared for the Government of India, had told the apex court that "given the sensitive nature of the issue the government wanted a 'larger debate' on the Article".
The view from Kashmir is that "with fall of the state government on June 19 in which BJP was a coalition partner with the PDP, the former is now expected to openly seek repeal of Article 35-A".
The NC, the PDP, the Congress, the CPI-M and all those who matter in Kashmir, including separatists of all hues, have repeatedly warned New Delhi that any move on its part to remove Article 35A would further alienate the already rather alienated Kashmir and that there could be widespread protests in case it was abolished.
As per reports, "in Kashmir, the protection of Article 35A has become a hot topic with separatists having already warned of consequences if it was fiddled with".
"We are very apprehensive at this stage and can't say conclusively what will happen, but we expect the Governor will stick to the stand already taken by the previous government which is in consonance with the constitutional spirit."
As for the people of Jammu, they want Article 35-A to go lock, stock and barrel.
The daughter of the state and refugees from Pakistan in particular are opposed to it. Daughters of the state married outside the state to non-permanent residents of the state oppose it because their children and spouses do not exercise any citizenship right in the state. And the refugees oppose it because they say that it is Article 35-A that has denied them the right to exercise any citizenship right in the state.
They have also approached the Supreme Court and sought abrogation of Article 35-A. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
