SC unlikely to hear Article 35A case till Tuesday

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, February 23

Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A are unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court at least till Tuesday, sources said here this evening.

“The matter figures in the weekly list of cases generally taken up on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. It’s not in Tuesday’s list, a source familiar with the procedure told The Tribune, adding, “It had figured in the weekly list of cases earlier as well.

Earlier this month, when it was listed in the weekly list, Jammu and Kashmir Government standing counsel M Shoeb Alam had circulated a letter seeking adjournment of the matter. Amid crackdown on separatist leaders in Kashmir, there are rumours about hearing of petitions against Article 35A by the Supreme Court next week. Political parties in the militancy-hit state have been agitating against any possible move to scrap the controversial provision. The National Conference and CPM have already moved the Supreme Court in support of Article 35A.

But the Supreme Court had on January 22 said it would take an “in-chamber” decision on listing of petitions against Article 35A for hearing.

Added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, Article 35A gives special rights and privileges to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir and debars rest of Indians from acquiring immovable property, obtaining state government jobs and settling in the state. It denies property rights to woman marrying men from other states. This legal disability also applies to heirs of such women.

Besides, being violative of right to equality and certain other rights, Article 35A has been challenged on the ground that the President could not have amended the Constitution by an executive Order without parliamentary approval and that it was to be a temporary provision.

The SC had on August 31 last year adjourned to January 2019 hearing on petitions against Article 35A of the Constitution after both the Centre and state of Jammu and Kashmir sought deferment citing law and order problem and preparations for local body elections in the state.

However, on February 22 the SC had said it would consider urgent listing of a PIL challenging the validity of Articles 35A and 370. “Give the mentioning memo to the Registrar. We will see it,” a Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi had told Delhi BJP leader advocate Ashwini Upadhyay after he demanded urgent hearing of his petition, terming it of “extreme national importance”.