Article 35A case: Hearing deferred by three months

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred its hearing by three months after the Centre informed the court that it had appointed an interlocutor to hold talks in Jammu and Kashmir and proceeding with the hearing of the case would affect the process of dialogue.

Attorney-general K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told a threejudge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud hearing petitions on validity of Article 35A of the Constitution conferring special status to J&K that the interlocutor had started a dialogue with the stakeholders and pleaded for six months time to file a report.

He said if the court proceeded with the hearing, it would affect the process of dialogue. The bench granted 12 weeks time to the Centre and deferred the hearing till then. The counsel for the petitioners pleaded for referring the issue to a five-judge constitutional bench.

The court was hearing petitions challenging the legality and constitutional validity of Article 35A of the Constitution conferring special status to J&K. Charu Wali Khanna,

Attorney-general K.K. Venugopal said if the court proceeded with the hearing, it would affect the process of dialogue

a Kashmiri Pandit, has challenged the Article as unconstitutional. Counsel Bimal Roy Jad argued that the petitioner, who had married outside her caste and settled outside the state of Jammu and Kashmir, was not entitled to property.

The petitioner said gender bias is writ large on this provision, which is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. She has challenged the notification dated April 20, 1927, issued by Maharaja Bahadur of Kashmir, which takes away the right of a wife or widow otherwise available to them as state subject unless she resides in the state and does not leave the state for permanent residence. The same was given constitutional sanction by Article 35A of the Constitution of India read with Section 6 of the Constitution of J&K.

It is the petitioner’s case that two provisions are violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.