State has a strong case to defend Article 35A: J&K Advocate General Jahangir Iqbal Ganai
, ET Bureau|
Updated: Nov 04, 2017, 10.18 AM IST
J&K’s Advocate General Jahangir Iqbal Ganai is convinced that the state has a strong case to defend article 35 (A) in the Supreme Court, clarifying that this article was never part of the Indian constitution.
He reiterated that the apex court would decide the matter in accordance with the law and constitution and nobody should have any apprehensions about that.
The AG stated that the article 35(A) is in the appendix of the constitution that is applicable to the J&K state, which he believes is not known to many and has created confusion amongst the people.
“We have a very good case and there is nothing to worry. There is no constitutional issue involved now, as that has already been decided by the constitutional bench,” Ganai told ET.
Article 35 (A), that ensures special privileges to the residents of J&K, has been contested in the SC and the three-judge bench has deferred the hearing earlier this week, for three months, considering government’s submission that hearing the case would impact New Delhi’s dialogue initiative in J&K. The issue has touched the sensitive cords of identity and religion in the state and political parties across the spectrum including ruling PDP, opposition NC and even Hurriyat have vowed to fight against its abrogation at any cost.
The regional pro-India political parties see it as a threat to their existence as they have always projected themselves as buffer between the state and New Delhi protecting the special identity of the state. J&K chief minister Mehbooba Mufti went on record saying that if special status of J&K was tinkered with, there would be nobody to hold tricolor in the state.
“35 (A) is not part of the constitution of India. Thus there was no requirement of parliament amending it. And this is why a presidential order was issued after concurrence from the constituent assembly of the state. J&K had no fundamental rights for first four years after 1947. We extended fundamental rights of Indian constitution to J&K, only because article 35 (A) was there otherwise we may have not done that,” said Ganai, while referring to the contention that this article violates fundamental rights of the citizens of India.
“Besides, 35 (A) should also be seen as an issue of trust between the then central and state governments. Trust on the basis of the documents,” he said.
The clause six of the Delhi agreement in 1952, Ganai said, appreciates and recognizes the need of special rights to J&K and that is why the then PM gave a statement in the parliament recognizing two issues that of citizenship and special rights while referring to law passed by the Dogra Maharaja in 1927.
“We should not have apprehension about judicial system. Court is here to decide matter in accordance with law and the constitution is supreme,” said Ganai.
J&K state, according to sources has also thoroughly prepared the response over inheritance of women issue debated under article 35 (A), and many within the government believe that the inheritance should continue, but it should not entail them to get consideration for permanent residence of the state.
J&K government has hired senior advocate Fali S Nariman to represent the state in SC regarding this issue and he is leading a battery of lawyers from the state including Ganai.
He reiterated that the apex court would decide the matter in accordance with the law and constitution and nobody should have any apprehensions about that.
The AG stated that the article 35(A) is in the appendix of the constitution that is applicable to the J&K state, which he believes is not known to many and has created confusion amongst the people.
“We have a very good case and there is nothing to worry. There is no constitutional issue involved now, as that has already been decided by the constitutional bench,” Ganai told ET.
Article 35 (A), that ensures special privileges to the residents of J&K, has been contested in the SC and the three-judge bench has deferred the hearing earlier this week, for three months, considering government’s submission that hearing the case would impact New Delhi’s dialogue initiative in J&K. The issue has touched the sensitive cords of identity and religion in the state and political parties across the spectrum including ruling PDP, opposition NC and even Hurriyat have vowed to fight against its abrogation at any cost.
The regional pro-India political parties see it as a threat to their existence as they have always projected themselves as buffer between the state and New Delhi protecting the special identity of the state. J&K chief minister Mehbooba Mufti went on record saying that if special status of J&K was tinkered with, there would be nobody to hold tricolor in the state.
“35 (A) is not part of the constitution of India. Thus there was no requirement of parliament amending it. And this is why a presidential order was issued after concurrence from the constituent assembly of the state. J&K had no fundamental rights for first four years after 1947. We extended fundamental rights of Indian constitution to J&K, only because article 35 (A) was there otherwise we may have not done that,” said Ganai, while referring to the contention that this article violates fundamental rights of the citizens of India.
“Besides, 35 (A) should also be seen as an issue of trust between the then central and state governments. Trust on the basis of the documents,” he said.
The clause six of the Delhi agreement in 1952, Ganai said, appreciates and recognizes the need of special rights to J&K and that is why the then PM gave a statement in the parliament recognizing two issues that of citizenship and special rights while referring to law passed by the Dogra Maharaja in 1927.
“We should not have apprehension about judicial system. Court is here to decide matter in accordance with law and the constitution is supreme,” said Ganai.
J&K state, according to sources has also thoroughly prepared the response over inheritance of women issue debated under article 35 (A), and many within the government believe that the inheritance should continue, but it should not entail them to get consideration for permanent residence of the state.
J&K government has hired senior advocate Fali S Nariman to represent the state in SC regarding this issue and he is leading a battery of lawyers from the state including Ganai.
