Thursday, 1 December, 2022
HomeJudiciaryKashmir on edge again as hearing on Article 35A in Supreme Court...

Kashmir on edge again as hearing on Article 35A in Supreme Court draws closer

The case of Article 35A has been in the Supreme Court since 2014, when a Delhi-based NGO called We The Citizens challenged its validity.

Text Size:

New Delhi: The Kashmir Valley is on edge again even as uncertainty prevails over the exact date the Supreme Court will take up a batch of petitions challenging the legitimacy of Article 35A in Jammu & Kashmir.

Article 35A is a constitutional provision that allows the J&K assembly to define “permanent residents” of the state, who are then eligible to certain rights and privileges, including employment in the J&K government, acquisition of immovable land or property, scholarships and other such aid and welfare from the government.

It flows from an over-90-year-old notification that was issued through a presidential order in 1954.

The provision bars non-residents from acquiring property in Jammu & Kashmir, and locals consider it sacred to the agreement under which the state acceded to India in 1947. It also revokes the inheritance rights of local women who marry outside the state, and these two factors form the heart of the protest against Article 35A.

The case has been in the Supreme Court since 2014, when a Delhi-based NGO called We The Citizens challenged its validity.

In August last year, the Supreme Court scheduled the hearing for January, after the Centre and the state administration cited law and order concerns during the local polls in November and December 2018 to seek a postponement.

It was scheduled to be taken up in the second week of January, but is yet to be heard. However, the matter of the legal validity of Article 35A, an emotive issue in Jammu & Kashmir, is expected to be taken up any day now.

Ahead of the hearing, there’s been tension in Kashmir, with reports of panic purchases of fuel and food supplies.

On Saturday, the government launched a massive crackdown on separatists and detained over 150 people, mainly from the Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir. The Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir has in the past been touted as the parent political party of the Hizbul Mujahideen, but the organisation has always maintained that it is a socio-religious group.

The Jamaat termed the raids “fishy” at a time when the Supreme Court is to hear a petition regarding Article 35A.


Also read: Kashmir shut down after separatists protest Supreme Court’s hearing on Article 35A


Meanwhile, the Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL), an umbrella coalition of separatist groups, called for a shutdown in the Valley Sunday, PTI reported, “to protest these arbitrary mass arrests… and any tampering with Article 35A”.

‘Sensitive’ issue

Since the matter was first filed in 2014, it has been heard only 13 times.

On 17 July 2017, the Centre – responding for the first time – submitted that it had taken a “conscious decision” not to file any counter affidavit in this case, because the issues raised were “pure questions of law”.

Representing the Centre, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had requested the matter to be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench.

Venugopal informed a bench comprising Justices J.S. Khehar and D.Y. Chandrachud that the Centre did not wish to say anything on this subject since it is “very sensitive” and requires a “larger debate”.

However, the top court then posted the matter for final disposal before a full bench comprising three judges.

Dismiss the matter, the state says

The matter is yet to be heard at length in court since the Centre and the state have repeatedly sought to delay the hearing on various pretexts.

The same month the Centre and the state sought a postponement, in August 2018, J&K filed a reply seeking dismissal of the plea, saying that the matter need not be heard since the issue had already been settled in two apex court judgments.

“…Since Article 370, as enacted and amended remained in the Constitution of India, as an integral part thereof and since the Presidential Order of 1954 i.e. Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, has been recognised and acted on, as valid, ever since its promulgation and when challenged, the challenge has stood rejected by the two Constitution benches of this Hon’ble court,” the state had said.

Representing the state, eminent jurist Fali Nariman defended Article 35A, saying that after six decades, the provision had become a permanent feature of the Constitution.

“The instant petition seeks to upset settled law, accepted and complied with by all,” the state argued.

Just earlier this month, J&K had filed a plea seeking to adjourn the “sensitive” matter since there is no elected government in the state and it is currently under President’s rule.


Also read: BJP-PDP split may help Modi win 2019, but Kashmir may become a lost cause


The state has been under President’s rule since the Peoples Democratic Party-Bharatiya Janata Party government collapsed in June.

The challenges to Article 35A

In its plea, We The Citizens has contended that J&K is using Article 35A to discriminate against non-residents of the state, and says the provision is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights.

The petition also says that a new article in the Constitution cannot be simply backed by a presidential order, as done in 1954, adding that only Parliament can amend the Constitution.

There are at least five other pleas tagged with this matter that have also similarly challenged the constitutionality of 35A.

Another petitioner, Dr Charu Wali Khanna, a Kashmiri advocate who married a non-Kashmiri and settled outside the state, contends that Article 35A violates her inheritance rights.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

2 COMMENTS

  1. What I meant by “ disowning “ Article 370 is to drop the commitment to have it abolished. Also a grim editorial today in the Indian Express on Kashmir.

  2. True statesmanship would lie in disowning Article 370 completely. I did not know till quite recently that there is something called Article 35.A. No need to to make such an issue of this having been proclaimed by the President directly. If the Constitution can be amended nowadays in a couple of days, surely there have been majority governments in the past, whose writ ran over Parliament. 2. The scheme of power sharing between Delhi and Kashmir has been diluted almost beyond recognition since the Accession. Article 370 is something Kashmiris cling on to desperately, as some sign that they enjoy special status. Never disturbed when the party gets a shot of power, but always kept on the shelf. The time has come to make a graceful declaration that – like the Bunch of Thoughts – the party has moved on. 3. Responsible people are saying we have “ lost “ Kashmir. Time to reflect whether it is,emotionally, an integral part of India, as Kerala and Bengal are, or an outpost to be held by sheer force.

Comments are closed.

Most Popular