Scrutinizing And Scrapping The Legitimacy Of Article 35A

Must Read

Explained: The Scope of Article 21 During the Era of COVID-19

“One’s right to self, their body, their health, and their livelihoods is inherent to living a meaningful human life, Human...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

Follow us

Article 35A, that grants special rights and privileges to the individuals of Jammu & Kashmir, is confronting a legitimate test in the Apex Court. A discussion over continued the constitutional provisions has picked up in recent months, once many pleas were filed within the Apex Court questioning the validity of Article 35A.

On Transfiguration, the court aforementioned a three-judge bench would decide whether or not the pleas ought to be referred a five-judge Constitution bench for examining the larger issue of alleged violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Kashmir centrical political parties are demanding for shielding Article 35A, that the aforementioned was the sole bridge between Asian nation and J&K. However, the BJP and alternative parties of Jammu region are pressurising for its invalidation.

What Is Article 35A?

Article 35A is an immunity to acts being challenged for violation of the Constitution of the country. The petition filed by Mr Upadhyay has stricken Article 35A stating it infringes namely, Article 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21, as:

  • The disputed provision violates woman ‘right to marry a person according to her choice’, by not giving her heirs any right to property if she marries a man not holding Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC);
  • The mechanical segment, i.e the industrial sector and the private sector is regressive due to ownership restrictions in the state. As non-residents of the state of Jammu & Kashmir are not allowed from purchasing and possessing properties.
  • Students of other states are not granted admission in state engineering, medical and professional universities, violating Article 14 and 15.
  • Not only the Residents of other state are not allowed to take govt, jobs in the concerned state but also no voting rights are given to them.
  • Qualified & Specialised doctors, engineers and teachers refrain from residing in the state.
  • Grave violation of the fundamental rights of the SC and ST residing in the state from prolong period. Dalits & Valmikis, were granted the PRC subject to the condition that they and their future generations would serve as safai-karmacharis (scavengers);

Procedural Downside

It has been observed that Article 35A stricken by following the due process recommended for the amendment of the Constitution under Article 368; Article 370 gives no authoritative or official powers on the President to include or erase any provision of the Constitution of India which comes under the exclusive function of the Parliament. Article 35A was never discussed in the Parliament which implies that the President had avoided the lawmaking body, i.e, the legislature to incorporate this article. This would likewise infer that the power of amendment of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution was abbreviated in its application to J&K.

Question Of Legality

On August 27 date a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra will consider the question of legality and will check the validity of Article 35A. Ashwini Upadhyay a renowned advocate and BJP leader filed a petition in order to strike down the impugned provision.

Scrutinizing And Scrapping The Legitimacy Of Article 35A
Justice Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India

The State of J&K was granted a special status by incorporating Article 35A in the Constitution of India through an order of President Rajendra Prasad (1954) on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The provision gives the State Legislature complete discretion to determine the ‘permanent residents’ of the state. The special status would grant them special rights and privileges in different sector.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A. Khanwilkar had adjourned the crucial hearing on as many as five petitions “to the week commencing from August 27” on the grounds that they pertained to the challenge to a Constitutional scheme and could not be heard as the third judge, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was not present on that day.

Author’s Perception

If Article 35A is “removed, the BJP will vanish from the state”. “It is a battle for the liberation of our community from the yoke of worst-ever slavery, challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A in the Supreme Court. “If Article 35A Mr with, the day will not be far when the youth of Jammu will also pick up guns and stones. The BJP is selling dreams and want to sacrifice the interests of Jammu to achieve its goal of 300 plus (seats) in the upcoming parliamentary elections,” A disgruntled BJP leader told PTI.

For more updates on Jammu & Kashmir, keep visiting Libertatem Magazine


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -