Political parties demand protection for Article 35A

Ehsan Fazili

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, February 23

Amid heightened tension in the Valley and apprehensions over the hearing of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the permanent residents of the state, political parties have sought its protection and said any such decision should be avoided which would have far-reaching consequences.

The hearing on a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of Article 35A, filed by an NGO and others on the grounds that it had been illegally added to the Constitution, is expected to come up for hearing next week in the Supreme Court.

On February 11, the Jammu and Kashmir Government had sought adjournment of the hearing on the petitions challenging Article 35A.

Chief Spokesperson for the Peoples Democratic Party Rafi Ahmad Mir, in a statement issued here on Saturday, said the people of the state were concerned about protecting its special status and sought an assurance from the Governor about the protection of the Article.

“The stand of Additional Solicitor General of India in the apex court last year had put in question the official view of the state government. Now once again, with the hearing of the case next week, it is reasonable that the government clears its position to address the growing insecurities of people,” Mir said.

People’s Conference chairman Sajad Lone has objected to what it described the Governor’s tinkering with the constitutional provisions applicable to J&K and cautioned him to desist from taking any decision of far-reaching consequences.

Article 35A, incorporated into the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, provides special rights and privileges to the permanent residents of the state and bars people from outside from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

The arguments against scrapping the Article are that this is an attack on the special status, which cannot be thrown down on the basis that it affects fundamental privileges of other Indian citizens and that it would increase the influx of Hindus in the Muslim-majority state.

The petitions against it argue that it was not a part of the Constitution and was added under Article 370, itself a temporary provision.

The stand of Additional Solicitor General of India in the apex court last year had put in question the official view of the state government. Now once again, with the hearing of the case next week, it is reasonable that the government clears its position to address the growing insecurities of people. — Rafi Ahmad Mir, PDP Chief Spokesman