Justice DY Chandrachud recently underscored that Article 35A of the Indian Constitution undermines the basic rights of non-residents in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). This remark was made during a session on several petitions questioning the legality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and the repeal of Article 370.
The Debate Over Article 35A
Incorporated into the Indian Constitution in 1954, Article 35A provides Jammu and Kashmir with a unique autonomous status.
- It authorizes the state legislature to determine ‘permanent residents’ and grant them exclusive rights and benefits.
- Nonetheless, this clause has sparked controversy as it marginalizes non-residents of the state, stripping them of essential rights such as property ownership, government employment, and participation in local elections.
Justice Chandrachud’s Insights
Justice DY Chandrachud, a current member of the Supreme Court of India, noted that Article 35A contradicts the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
- He highlighted that the clause establishes two categories of citizens – one with exclusive rights and privileges and another devoid of those entitlements.
- This distinction, he argued, contradicts the equality principle embedded in the Constitution.
Additionally, the judge emphasized that the clause was never debated in Parliament and was implemented via a Presidential Order. This approach, he contended, breaches the constitutional process.
Potential Repercussions of the Remark
Justice Chandrachud’s comments are pivotal as they coincide with the ongoing Supreme Court case challenging the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and the repeal of Article 370. His observations could profoundly impact the case’s resolution and Jammu and Kashmir’s future.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the repeal of Article 370 and the division of the state into two union territories have been contentious topics since their enactment in August 2019.
Be the first to comment