Article 35A is not sacrificing human rights anywhere under the purview of privilege

Article 35A is not sacrificing human rights anywhere under the purview of privilege

Whenever Jammu and Kashmir are spoken, Article 370 is always a matter of debate, but Article 35A never becomes part of the mainstream of debate, whereas in Jammu and Kashmir it also holds the same significance. Article 35A also does not become the subject of discussion because people are not aware of it. This Article provides a lot of special rights to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, but it is also a major problem for a large number of citizens, refugees, and populations of any other state. It may be said that Article 35A gives special powers to Jammu and Kashmir, but eliminates human rights for a large population. This article is the reason for the fact that decades ago the refugees settled here have not been granted permanent status as permanent citizens.

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday

It is not that voice was never raised against Article 35A or to eliminate it. Many petitions that have been questioned on its Constitutionality have been filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has to hear the case on Monday, February 25. One of the main reasons for the hearing is the terror attack on CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) in Pulwama, Jammu, and Kashmir. Since the attack, the security system has been chalked up in the state. Since the announcement of the hearing, the police have been active in the state and some separatist leaders have been detained in the custody to avoid any untoward incident.

J & K leaders claim 35A removal will be serious results

At the same time, the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir have always been in support of Article 35 A, whether it be Farooq Abdullah or Mehbooba Mufti. It is argued that the removal of Article 35A from Jammu and Kashmir and not an amendment in it will reduce the impact of India in Jammu and Kashmir and the chaos here will increase to such extent, which will be controlled outside the bus. Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah had said in August 2018 that he would continue to fight for it till death, if it got tampered with, then the situation will get worse. Abdullah had said that the more the scandal will disperse this issue.

At the same time, the former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mahbuba Mufti had said in July 2017 that the article 35A was tampered with, there would be no survivor in Kashmir who could capture the Tricolor. Mehbooba also said that on one hand, we talk of resolving the Kashmir issue within the framework of the Constitution and on the other side we attack it. In this way, the solution to the Kashmir issue can not be resolved.

This is Article 35A

• The person outside Jammu and Kashmir can not buy real estate in the state.

• No other person from other states can become a citizen here.

• If the girl in the state marries an outside boy, then all her rights will be over.

• Residents from West Pakistan, due to the 35 A, are still deprived of the fundamental rights of the state and their identity.

• People living in Jammu and Kashmir who do not have a permanent residence certificate, they can vote in the Lok Sabha elections but they can not vote in the local body elections.

• The citizen here will be regarded as the only person who has been a citizen of the state on May 14, 1954, or has been living in the state for 10 years before or before or during this period.

Therefore there is a dispute on Article 35A

On January 26, 1950, the Constitution came into effect in the country. It also included Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. But in this paragraph 1954, Article 35A was added as a provision. Article 35A is not a part of the original constitution but it is kept in the Appendix. That's why people did not know it long enough.

Article 35A was neither presented in the Lok Sabha nor in the Rajya Sabha. It was only added to article 370 through the President's Order. According to Article 368 of the Constitution, since it has not been passed by Parliament, it can not be implemented for more than six months like an ordinance.

Legal bets scam till date

• The full bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had resolved the matter in October 2002 by rejecting the condition of 'State and other Vs. Dr. Sushila Sahni and other' State subject (Permanent Residence) Act in which it was said that from the state of women After getting married outside, he will be permanently residing.

• The bench had said in the historical verdict on October 7, 2002, that even if the daughter of a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir is married to a person outside the state, she will not be a permanent resident status.

• In the year 2002, the High Court had ruled in state and other versus Dr. Sushila Sahni and in other cases that if a woman from Jammu and Kashmir marries a man from another state, then the fundamental right of her property will be automatically ended. it happens.

• It is known that in 2002, the state's high court protected women's rights. The court terminated this provision in its decision. For the first time at that time, the Jammu and Kashmir assembly had knocked the High Court against this decision. On October 7, 2002, the Bench decided on the basis of a majority that permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir would not lose the right to be a permanent resident even after marrying a person outside the state.