We the Citizens, a Delhi-based NGO, had filed the petition arguing the “unconstitutionality” of Article 35A. The NGO has, in its petition, called the law discriminatory and added that the provision was supposed to be temporary in nature.
The hearing on the petition challenging Article 35A has been adjourned by the Supreme Court to August 27. Chief Justice Dipak Misra said a two-judge can't hear it.
While Article 370 caught the nation’s attention for its according of special status to Jammu and Kashmir, it is Article 35A of the Constitution that is the main bone of contention for the people of the rest of the country because it prohibits them from buying or owning immoveable properties in the State.
Not only that, Article 35A excludes non-permanent residents from State government jobs and scholarships.
Also read: Article 35A: Look who is sweating after attack on dubious Kashmir law
In the original version of the law, if a Kashmiri woman married outside the State, she would lose the resident status.
This provision of exclusion due to marriage was removed through an Amendment in 2002. However, the children of such couples remain disinherited from the properties of their parents situated in Jammu and Kashmir.
We the Citizens, a Delhi-based NGO, had filed the petition arguing the “unconstitutionality” of Article 35A. The NGO has, in its petition, called the law discriminatory and added that the provision was supposed to be temporary in nature.
Related articles: Article 35 A: The real devil in Kashmir
Article 35A: Mainstream Kashmiri parties no better than separatists
Read Exclusive COVID-19 Coronavirus News updates, at MyNation.