Hearing on Article 35A deferred by three months

New Delhi, Oct 30: The Supreme Court Monday deferred the case related to constitutional validity of Article 35A by three months.

The Supreme Court was to take up the case with a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of this article that has caused much political debate in the recent days. The article related to the state of Jammu and Kashmir has become the most politically volatile issue as it gave the authority to the state to decide upon citizenship status of an individual.

According to news agency ANI, this provision incorporated in the Constitution empowers the J & K Legislature to define permanent residents of the state.

Four petitions were filed in the Supreme Court demanding scrapping of this article before the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud. A Delhi-based NGP ‘We the Citizens’ had filed the main petition in 2014 before the three others were filed. All these petitions were clubbed together with the main one.

Article 35A is a constitutional provision that allows the Jammu-Kashmir assembly to define permanent residents of the state. According to the Jammu-Kashmir constitution, a Permanent Resident is defined as a person who was a state subject on May 14, 1954, or who has been residing in the state for a period of 10 years, and has “lawfully acquired immovable property in the state”.

The Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution by a presidential order in 1954 with a view to safeguarding the rights and guarantees the unique identity of the people of Jammu-Kashmir. Only the Jammu-Kashmir assembly can change the definition of PR through a law ratified by a two-thirds majority.

The J & K State Government had filed a counter-affidavit seeking rejection of the petitions but the Centre did not do so despite the request made by its ruling partner PDP in the state.

Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has warned that if Article 35A is removed, there won’t be anyone left to carry the Tricolour in Kashmir; Omar Abdullah has called it the death knell for pro-India politics in the Valley.

Former Chief Minister and Lok Sabha Member Dr Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar Abdullah had also opposed to scrapping of this special provision.

Attorney General K K Venugopal submitted to the Supreme Court that the issue was ‘very sensitive’ and therefore, required a ‘larger debate’ before coming to any decision.