Under new Guv too, state to urge SC to defer 35A hearing

Ishfaq Tantry

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, August 27

The change of Governor notwithstanding, the state government will press for the deferment of hearing into the petitions challenging the validity of Article 35A of the Constitution, citing the forthcoming panchayat elections.

As the matter is slated to come up before the Supreme Court on August 31, sources said the lawyers representing the J&K Government had been given “instructions” to seek the adjournment of the hearing into the matter.

“The matter is listed on August 31. Our stand would be the same that we had taken earlier. The J&K Government will request for an adjournment,” a J&K Government law official connected with the matter disclosed on condition of anonymity.

When the matter had been listed on August 8, the previous J&K administration headed by NN Vohra had sought an adjournment of the hearings on “account of the ongoing preparations for the upcoming panchayat/urban local bodies and municipal elections.”

The official said there was “no other option for the J&K Government other than to seek the adjournment till December”, as it had done earlier.

However, J&K Law Secretary Abdul Majid Bhat when contacted said he could not discuss with the media what stand the state government was going to take before the Supreme Court.

“As stated in our preliminary objections in the matter, our stand is that the matter related to 35A has already been settled (in 1962 and 1969) by the apex court”, he said while refusing to disclose the stand.

The writ petitions challenging Article 35A were adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Purandal Lakhanpal versus President of India and others in 1962 and Sampat Prakash versus the state of Jammu and Kashmir and others in 1969.The contentions were rejected in both cases.

Petitions filed  

• The Article 35 A of the Constitution which provides protection to the hereditary state subject law, gives the J&K legislature the powers to decide who are permanent residents of the state

• However, the bunch of petitions filed in the top court challenge Article 35A, contending that the Article was illegally added because it was never proposed before Parliament