Article 35A of the Indian Constitution is an article that empowers the Jammu and Kashmir state's legislature to define “permanent residents” of the state and provide special rights and privileges to those permanent residents. It was added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order, i.e., The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 - issued by the President of India on 14 May 1954, exercising the powers conferred by the clause (1) of the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, and with the concurrence of the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Prior to 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state under the British Paramountcy. The people of the princely states were "state subjects", not British colonial subjects. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the political movements in the state in the early 20th century led to the emergence of "hereditary state subject" as a political identity for the State's people. In particular, the Pandit community had launched a "Kashmir for the Kashmiri" movement demanding that only Kashmiris should be employed in state government jobs. Legal provisions for the recognition of the status were enacted by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir between 1912 and 1932. The 1927 Hereditary State Subject Order granted to the state subjects the right to government office and the right to land use and ownership, which were not available to non-state subjects.

Following the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union on 26 October 1947, The Maharaja ceded control over defence, external affairs and communications (the 'ceded subjects') to the Government of India . The Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the concomitant Constitutional Order of 1950 formalised this relationship. Discussions for furthering the relationship between the State and the Union continued, culminating in the 1952 Delhi Agreement, whereby the governments of the State and the Union agreed that Indian citizenship would be extended to all the residents of the state but the state would be empowered to legislate over the rights and privileges of the state subjects, who would now be called permanent residents.

The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday adjourned the meetingby challenging the validity of article 35A , will it reach to the five panel judge or not is bring still considered as an option. The issue stays open ended in the mid of panchayati election in the state. The provision in Article 35A that grants special rights and privileges to permanent citizens appears in the Constitution as an “appendix”, and not as an amendment. According to the NGO, Article 35A should be held “unconstitutional” as the President have no right to “amended the Constitution” by way of the 1954 order, and the article was never meant for long run and was meant as a “temporary provision”. The Article was never presented before Parliament for discussion and came into effect immediately. The Jammu and Kashmir government is claiming that the petition is faulty as the president had the power to incorporate a new provision in the Constitution by way of an order. The problem was dragged in the court by the petitioners on the ground that the provision was unconstitutionally added to the Constitution and any addition can only be done after discussion in the parliament by the elected leaders of the country. In the case of Article 35A, the provision was added without getting a nod from the Parliament.

Those defending the provision say that Article 35A is part of a historical pact between Kashmir and India allowing the state a special status in India. During the time of accession, it was agreed that the state would be endowed such status. Today, J&K derives its special status from two key constitutional provisions- Article 370 and Article 35A. Despite being viewed as a predominantly protective measure to ensure the residents or locals in the Valley don't lose their rights over land, government jobs and scholarships, the clause has stoked controversy over probable discrimination on the basis of gender. The 1954 order, argue several media reports, denies prope kirty rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. As protesters and leaders in the valley have joined hands seeking the squashing of the petition challenging Article 35A in Supreme Court, there is a huge pressure to maintain peace in an already-tensed state that has no government as of now and is being administered under Governor's rule since June 20.

3



  3