SC adjourns next year hearing on pleas to January challenging Article 35A

The Article was incorporated in the Constitution in 1954 by an order of President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the then Cabinet headed by Jawaharlal Nehru.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned to January next year the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of Article 35 A, which provides special rights and privileges to natives of Jammu and Kashmir, after taking note of submissions of the Centre and the state government that there was a law and order problem in the state.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was informed by Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Jammu and Kashmir government respectively that in view of the impending eight-phased local body elections and law and order situation in the state, the hearing be deferred.

"Let the elections take place. We are told that there is a law and order problem," the bench which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said while adjourning the hearing to the second week of January on petitions challenging Article 35 A.

Article 35-A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

It also denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs.

At the outset, ASG Mehta said local body elections for the post of 4,500 sarpanch seats and other local body posts would be held in eight phases and begin in September and continue till December.

"If the local body elections are not held then a fund of Rs 4,335 crores meant for local bodies will lapsed," he said while seeking adjournment of the hearing and referred to the prevailing law and order situation in the state.

The argument seeking adjournment was advanced after the bench indicated that it would hear the petitions in September itself to decide as too whether the petitions challenging the validity of Article 35 A can be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench.

Article Source BS