A Look through the Mist: With the conditions prevailing - Constitution of India too could be named the first victim of C.O 48 in terms of Art 35A

It is more since 2014 that Article 35A of Constitution of India has been under lively discussions and debates since when some pointed questions on the very exitence of this article as being part of Constitution of India ( COI ) have been placed in the public domain as well as raised before the Supreme Court of India. Art 35A is not included in the main body of the COI but is included in the Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order of 14 May 1954 C.O 48 appended as Appendix-I with COI and is still considered like a regular article of COI.

Art 35A has the unique distinction of being the only Article of Constitution of India that empowers the Indian state of State of J&K/ J&K Legislature to place some citizens of India in a particular class / category by the name Permanent Resident of J&K and /or confer ( exclusive) special rights & privileges on the Permanent Residents of J&K with in the State of J&K or for imposing upon other citizens of India any restrictionsto the extent of even totally denying such fundamental rights to other citizens of India as respects (regards):
(i) employment under the State Government;
(ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State;
(iii) settlement in the State; or
(iv) right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, even if it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights ( fundamental rights) conferred on the other citizens of India by COI.

In others words for explanation purposes it could be said that no doubt there are also some other Articles of Constitution of India like Art330 (Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People Lok Sabha ), Art332 ( Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States ) ,Art 335 (Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts ), Art14( equality before law), Art15{(4) -Nothing in this article or in clause 2 of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes}, Art15{(5)- Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.] },Art16{(4)- Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. ), Art19{ (1e- to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India &1d- to move freely throughout the territory of India ), Art19(5)- Nothing in 1[sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe} , Art-46 ( Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections) in Constitution of India that provide for special provisions for some classes/ castes of Indian citizens like SC/ST/socially& educationally backward sections but under these articles no authority is given to Union/State / Parliament/any state legislature other than J&K to totally deny / violate the rights of all other citizens whereas under the shelter of Art 35A the J&K State Government / J&K State Legislature can deny in totality right to holding /buying land in J&K, right for settling any where in J&K, right for joining State government service in J&K, right for joining government run engineering / medical/ professional colleges / right for voting in election to J&K legislative assembly or joining J&K Legislative Assembly to Indian citizens who are not included in the category of Permanent Residents of J&K as has been defined in Section-6 & 7 of J&K Constitution 1957.

In other words in terms of Art 335 there may be kept some reservations in services for SC/ST but that could be only some percentage and not 100% of seats / jobs like is the case with Art 35A under which State Government / Legislature can reserve / have reserved 100 % jobs in State Government Departments ; like is could be the case with Art 332 of COI for reserving some seats fro SC/ST in state legislatures but in J&K 100% seats in J&K Legislature for those Indian citizens who are defined as Permanent Residents of J&K and even amongst them no seat is reserved for ST who are permanent resident of J&K. Reservation can not be kept for all the seats for SC/ST in a professional college for SC/ST in view ofArt 15(4&5) or Art-46but under the cover of Article 35A total admissions in Government Medical as well as Engineering colleges of J&K have been denies to those Indian citizens who are not defined as Permanent Residents of J&K . Similar is the case with respect to rightsgiven to all Indian citizens by articles19(1)(d) and19(1)(e) - 'to move freely throughout the territory of India' and 'to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India' where as per laws in J&K no person other than permanent resident of J&K can hold land / house in J&K..
No only that there are also cases where fundamental / human /natural rights have been denied even to the Permanent Residents of J&K what to talk of non- permanent residents of J&K like the female Permanent Residents of J&K who are in a way denied right to even chose life partner of total choice and the Schedule Tribe Permanent residents of J&K who denied reservation in J&K Legislature.

No court in India can hear petitions against such discriminatory or irrational or illogical laws / orders of State government since Art 35A , a new article added in Constitution of India unduly by over stretching the constitution authority of President of India through Constitution ( Application to Jammu and Kashmir ) Order of 1954 Dt 14 May 1954 that been so far taken as a valid article of Constitution of India, provides constitutional legitimacy where ever such like irregularities are / have been committed . And hence it will not be wrong to that with the conditions prevailing COI too could be said the first victim of ‘Art 35A’.

What to talk of some special good, even Permanent Residents of J&K have been the Victim of Art 35A:
Prime political leadership of J&K that has all these years held the reins of governance in J&K had been mostly from Kashmir valley and has been naming Art 35A as a very special provision created in Constitution of India for the people & state of J&K. If one goes by the claims of the local political leadership one would hope that there might be ‘very very’ special and beneficial local laws & rules in J&K making atleast ( if not of all Indian citizens ) the living of Permanent Residents of J&K very –very special and better than the residents of other Indian statesbut the position has not been like that since as on date the Permanent Residents of J&K too are denied some betters as are available to Indian citizens of other states and there are also some discriminatory local prevalent laws / rules in J&K that discriminate even amongst some classes of permanent residents of J&K like as is in the case of Male & Female permanent residents and the Displaced Permanent Residents of J&K ( erstwhile State Subjects of J&K) from areas occupied by Pakistan in 1947 staying in J&K and those staying in other Indian states.In a way even some Permanent Resident of J&K have been denied their fundamental rights / human rights as has been the case of the Female Permanent Residents of J&K who are forced to chose their life partner ‘from with in J&K’ and in case one wants /ventures to chose the bridegroom from Punjab or up or Chinnai her spouse / children will not have the rights of a PR of J&K.

The bads of the prevailing local laws / deficiencies in the local laws / policies that have put to disadvantage even some Permanent Residents of J&K
(i) The Woman Permanent Residents with the prevailing gender discriminatory rights,
(ii) by not providing reservations in the legislature to Schedule Tribe Permanent Residents of J&K,
(iii) by denying the due adequate number of reserved seats in the legislative assembly to The Schedule Caste Permanent Residents of J&K,
(iv) by even denying due rights of permanent residents of J&K to erstwhile over 5300 Families of 1947 displaced state subjects of J&K from the areas Indian state of J&K occupied by Pakistan in 1947 (These families are covered as Displaced Persons from J&K under the order No. 1476-C of 1950 dated 16.12.1950 but have not been considered as displaced persons in 2016) that were issued by Sheikh Mohd Abdullah in 1950, the then PM of J&K .
(v) J&K Legislative Assembly passed The Constitution of Jammu And Kashmir (Tweniy-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2002 (23rd April_ 2002) so to amend Section-47 (3) of J&K Constitution thereby putting practically a bar on fresh delimitation ( distribution) of single member segments in the Legislative Assembly till 2031 ( as and when the Census data after 2026 is published) thereby denying a representative of nearness to the Permanent Residents of J&K for many years to come since the revision for relocation of assembly segments could be done only by delimitation commission (Even PDP-BJP Agenda for Alliance had in the chapter “Social & Humanitarian Initiatives” included constitution of a delimitation Commission for the delimiting of Legislative Assembly Constituencies as required by law but not any action in any form was even initiated in more than three years of their governance),
(vi) in a way denying the Quality of Health Care & Medical Education for the Permanent Residents of J&K since the existing rules do not allow appointment of specialists doctors from other Indian states in local government medical colleges / hospitals that do face acute shortage of qualified doctors faculty,
(vii) by the J&K state not contributing a few medical seats from local medical colleges to common national pool thereby denying opportunity to the permanent residents of J&K to compete for thousands of seats of MD/MS at national level
(viii) and the like .But no one even from amongst the Indian Citizens who are this day named as Permanent Residents of J&K can approach a court even against such like rules/policies/laws/acts of the state since Art 35A provides constitutional cover to the State that can be accused of knowingly not bothering to take corrective measures even in the matters that concern the permanent resident of J&K citizens of India what to talk of non permanent resident Indian citizens inspite of requests / suggestions from the permanent residents of J&K , and even indirect suggestions from the courts.

While laying down the definition for the Permanent Resident of J&K in Section-6 of J&K Constitution ( definition partly drawn from Notification No. 1-L/84 dated the twentieth April, 1927, read with State Notification No. 13/L dated the twenty seventh June, 1932 of Maharaja Hari Singh Government ) on 17 November 1956 ( Sections 1 to 8 and Section 158 became effective from this date whereas other sections w.e.f 16thJan 1957) in a way only those people who qualified to be the Citizens of India interms constitution of India but had been Permanent Resident of J&K ( State Subject of Class- I,II and in a way even Class-III- who had been accorded rights as State Subject by Maharaja Government / State Government after 1911AD till 14 May 1954) and those who were still staying as ordinary residents of J&K after obtaining permission ( Izazatnama) from Maharaja Government having lawfully acquired immovable property in the State, since & prior to 14thMay 1944 AD.

Accordingly, also the provisions / rules / laws for exclusive rights to the State Subjects of J&K as were there before 1947 like that regarding services under state government ( in the shape of like that in Section-127 of J&K Constitution - Transitional provisions public services ) & holding of immoveable properties in J&K {Section-158 –(2,3)- Repeal and saving of laws and rules} ; exclusive rights to Permanent Residents of J&K for voting in assembly elections & entering J&K Legislature ( Section -51 - Qualifications for membership of the Legislature; Section 140 of J&K Constitution – Elections to Legislative Assembly ) ; aids from the government were conferred on the permanent residents of J&K only.

No doubt Section-8 & Section-9 are also there to allow relay of provisions / descriptions, when ever needed, the qualifications and special provisions / rights of Permanent Residents of J&K but so far ( upto January 2019) no amendments have been made even to correct the wrongs and undo the injustice done even to Indian citizens named as Permanent Residents of J&K what to talk of addressing the grievances of Indian Citizens belonging to Indian states other than J&K as regards their rights for joining J&K state services , buying land in J&K that were blocked even after 1947 in Independent India and are still blocked in J&K. Not only that even the rights that of (i) the families of ‘local’ Balmikies & Gurkhas who have served the interests of local state population for decades , (ii) the refugees from Pakistan who are staying in J&K since 1947 (iii) IAS/IPS/IFS officers of J&K Cadre even after serving in J&K for 35 to 40 years (iv) decorated Indian defence force personnel like those 21 decorated with Param Vir Charkras out of which 16 have fought on the J&K LOC/LAC/IB and 15 of them were non- permanent residents of J&K.

Allegations do hold that the corrections are not applied intentionally by local leaderships who have so far held the reins of governance all these years more to show that J&K is a distantly placed Indian state and that has been very clearly demonstrated by the behaviour and statements that have come from ‘prime’ Kashmir valley leadership during 2017 in view of some petitions before the SC rightfully challenging even the very ‘existence’ of Art 35A as an article of Constitution of India.

Article 370(1-d) is surely not amending the Constitution of India

Art-35A was added in the Constitution of India as a ‘New” Article neither by the Constituent Assembly of India ( COI) nor by the Parliament of India (under the constituent powers available under Art368) but is taken to have been added simply by an order of the President of India ( C.O 48 of 14 May 1954) .This Article is neither part of Art35 nor does this article exit in the main body of the constitution of India before Art 36. The Constitution(Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 1954 C.O. 48 is said to have been issued by President of India for adding Art 35A as a New Article in COI in exercise of the powersconferred on President by Clause (1) of Article 370 .Article 35A has not been mentioned in the main text of the Constitution of India ( COI) but has been mentioned only in Appendix –I as one of the items of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of the President of India of date 14 May 1954.But, the said order as far as items like Art 35A are concerned , is constitutionally invalid sinceArt 370(1) does not empower the President of India for amending COI so as to add a new Article like 35A since adding a new articleis an act of amending of constitution and can not be taken refuge under even sub clause (d) of clause (1) of Article-370 of Constitution of India since the scope of this sub-clause ( 370-1d) is limited to onlysuch of the other provisions of the Constitution of India that already exist in the Constitution of India where as vide constitution application order of1954 C.O. 48a new namely Article 35A is taken to have been added in constitution of India {Sub Clause (1d) ofArt 370 (1-d){ Art370 (1) (d)..such of the other provisions of the Constitution shall apply in relation to J&K State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify but… }

Although this aspect had not for about six decades attracted pointed / analytic/ critical attention of experts, but now since the possible constitutional inadequacies have been pointed out, adding a new article in the constitution can not be any more taken as simply nominating some exceptions and modifications w.r.t some provisions of the Constitution in relation to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir.

When we discuss The Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 1954 C.O. 48 with respect to adding Art 35A in Constitution of Indiathe question is not of modification of an existing constitutional provision but it is of adding a new article and that could be only by amending the constitution. In reference to the case under study it could be said that the President has not simply ordered application ofsome provisions of Constitution of India ( that existed in the first constitution of India or have been incorporated in constitution of India by Parliament at some later date after 26 Jan 1957 exercising the constituent power available under article 368)to Jammu & Kashmir withexceptions and modifications of but has in a way unconstitutionally overstretched his delegations so as to even amend the constitution of India.

In the Puranlal Lakhanpal Vs. The President Of India And Others Case The Apex Court (Hon’ble Justice Gajendragadkar, P.B. Sarkar, A.K. Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala Writ Petition No. 139 of 1957 under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental rights. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/1961) held, that the word "modification" used in Art. 370(I) must be given the widest meaning in the context of the Constitution and in that sense it includes an amendment and it cannot be limited to such modifications as do not make any "radical transformation". Where as in the case of Art 35A the question is not of modification or amendment of an existing constitutional provision but it is surely of adding a new article amounting to unduly amending the constitution by the President ( not simply ordering someexceptions and modifications of some existing provisions of constitution of India for direct application with regard to Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir ).

Similarly in the Writ Petition No. 11 of 1968 under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of the fundamental rights, Sampat Prakash vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr Bench Bhargava, Vishishtha Hidayatullah, M. (Cj) Shelat, J.M. Mitter, G.K. Vaidyialingam in judgement deliveredon 10 October, 1968 the Hon’ble SC had observed to go with the judgement delivered by a larger bench in the casePuranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India, 1962. So,the apex court constitutional bench has observed as in the case of Puran Lal Lakshanpal the observations of the Apex Court -- “thus, in law, the word "modify" may just mean "vary", i.e., amend, and when Art. 370(1) says that the President may apply the provisions of the Constitution to the State of Jammu & Kashmir with such modifications as he may by order specify, it means that he may vary (i.e., amend) the provisions of the Constitution in its application to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

We are, therefore, 'of opinion that in the context of the Constitution we must give the widest effect to the meaning of the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1) and in that sense it includes an amendment. There is no reason to limit the word "modifications" as used in Art. 370(1) only to such modifications as do not make any "radical transformation">.Since even if these judgements are kept in view , no doubt it is true that Art 370 (1-d) says that President may apply the provisions of the Constitution to the State of Jammu & Kashmir with such modifications as he may by order specify but that can be taken as making reference only to the provisions that existed in the constitution and can not be stretched to ‘amend’ (modifying) the Constitution itself i.e adding some new article in the Constitution of India as has been done by adding a new Article namely Art 35A after Article 35 ( but so strangely not keeping it in the main body of the constitution, why ? is a fair question ) in constitution of India by the President by issuing the Constitution application ( to Jammu and Kashmir ) order of1954 C.O. 48.

Therefore ,even with in the scope of sub- clause (d) of clause (1) of Article 370an order for adding anew article in the constitution can not be defended or taken refuge under this provision which only allows modification of some existing constitutional provision and can not be used for amending the constitution of India to the extent of even adding a new article. So, an order, said to have been issued under Art 370(1) so as to add new article in COI does not fall in the class of modifying an existing provision as provided in Art 370 w.r.t the Indian state of J&K.

No doubt addition to questions raised in foregoing para(s), the contents of Section-4(j) of the Constitution (Application To Jammu And Kashmir) Order, 1954 C.O. 48 are also being put under the question mark by some for beingunconstitutional and void on the ground that the contents of Art 35A damage the basic structure of the Constitution as regards the fundamental rights of some citizens of India and in a way go beyond even the jurisdiction that Parliament has under the constituent power contained in Art 368 for amending the COI.

Questions have not been raised earlier only in relation to the rights of Indian citizens of the non- Permanent Resident of J&K class but have also been raised on behalf of the rights of some of those Indian citizens who have been categorised as ‘Permanent Resident of J&K’ having been continuously mal treated by the ‘local governments’ / legislature even when the deficiencies / wrongs that could be corrected locally had been submitted all these years to those in power/ local legislature. But although such bads / short coming as were pleaded by some before the Courts were in a way indirectly acknowledged as irregularities / discriminatory but simultaneously inability for granting any relief was expressed taking that as constitutionally protected under Art 35A as has been said in the judgement of the case Bachan Lal Kalgotra vs State of Jammu & Kashmir And Others { 20 February, 1987- Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1169, 1987 SCR (2) 369)}…. ( “It is to be noticed here that these provisions are not open to challenge as inconsistent with the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India because of "the Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 1954" issued by the President of India underArt. 370(1)(d)of the Constitution by which Art. 35(A)was added to the Constitution in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.”…

“In the circumstances, in view of the peculiar Constitutional position obtaining in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. We do not see what possible relief we can give to the petitioner and those situate like him. All that we can say is that the position of the petitioner and those like him is anomalous and it is up to the Legislature of the State of Jammu Kashmir to take action to amend legislature, such as, the Jammu &Kashmir Representation of the People Act, the Land Alienation Act, the Village Panchayat Act, etc. so as to make persons like the petitioner who have migrated from West Pakistan in 1947 and who have settled down in the State of Jammu & Kashmir since then, eligible to be included in the electoral roll, to acquire land, to be elected to the Panchayat, etc. etc” … “In regard to providing employment opportunities under the State Government. it can be done by the Government by amending the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services, Classification of Control and Appeal Rules. In regard to admission to higher technical educational institutions also, the Government may make these persons eligible by issuing appropriate executive directions without even having to introduce any legislation. The petitioners have a justifiable grievance.”..).Hence here we are discussing & questioning only the technicalities / jurisdictions as regards the ‘birth’ of Art 35A and the authority delegated / powers conferred on the president under sub- clause 1-d of Art-370 of COI.So farArt 35A, has been taken as valid and legitimate article of Constitution of India but it is now being put under question mark.

Article 35A that technically & legally does not qualify to be an Art of Constitution of India has already done enough damage &, promoted separatist ideologies so it must be declared a non existent Article of Constitution of India with out any delay. In other words need is not to abrogate it or to modify it or to amend it , need is to declare it a non existent article.

Let us now make the discussions more pointed and plead that the "first victim" of Art 35A is even Constitution of India . More of the need is to take the Art 35A out of political domain and limit discussions / analysis only with in legal domain ( as far as possible)

Debate on Art 35A should be kept only with in Legal Domain

The local prime leadership (that mostly belonged to Kashmir valley) has not so far responded to logical and truthful proposals / request for corrections even to the deficiencies / wrongs that are pointed out by civil society at occasions (even suggested by the courts) through administrative orders or with the help of constitutional provisions available in Section-8 & Section-9 , Section 147 of J&K Constitutions even for matters that concerned the Permanent Residents of J&K { (like gender rights of local woman), reservations for ST in legislative assembly (special legislative rights like other Indian states have not been given to Schedule Tribe Permanent Residents of J&K in spite of there being also Secton-23 in J&K Constitution as regards Protection of educational, material and cultural interests of socially and economically backward sections - no seats in J&K legislature reserved for ST where as in other states like Assam 16/114, Bihar & Jharkhand -28/318,Gujrat-25/168, HP-3/68, Kerala-2/133, MP & Chattisgarh -64/296, Maharashtra- 17/270, Orissa-34/140, WB- 17/280 and like seats are reserved for ST in Legislative assemblies as per Art 332 of COI), adequate reservations for SC in legislative assembly (seats in J&K Assembly reserved for SC are not as on date to direct proportions of population like Art332 of COI and Section-49 of J&K Constitution/ J&K Representation of People’s Act 1957), adequate representation to Permanent Residents of J&K living in remote & backward areas in Legislative Assembly by sealing time corrective delimitations for decades ( not possible before 2031), not opening appointment of specialists in medical / engineering colleges and government hospitals from out side J&K where the qualified specialists are not locally available etc what to talk of the Indian citizens who are not permanent residents of J&K or and belong to Indian states other than J&K}.

The only intention behind such like behaviour of the J&K prime leadership that has all these held the reins of governance and has also been enjoying the patronage of those holding reins of governance in Delhi could be assessed as to be their intentions to project that even after 1947 the state of J&K has not become as good an Indian state as is Punjab or MP. Article 35A provides constitutional protection against judicial review to the state government . Kashmir valley prime leadership has in the recent past gone to the extent of saying that Art 35A has been added in the Constitution of India to ensure that the Muslim majority character of J&K state is maintained even after accession 1947.

The families of ‘local’ non permanent residents like that of Balmikies & Gurkhas who have served the interests of local state population for decades , the refugees from Pakistan who are staying in J&K since 1947 are still addressed as West Pakistan Refugees after 7 decades of partition of India and IAS/IPS/IFS officers of J&K Cadre who serve J&K for 35 to 40 years but can not own land / house in their name in J&K ( their children too can not join state services under exiting laws too are devoid of their fundamental rights in the Indian state of J&K as guaranteed under article 14,16,19 of the Constitution of India. Avery large part of Indian border / LOC/LAC with other countries falls in J&K and the Indian Army has been fighting on these borders to defend lands and people of J&K so regularly after 1947 where under out of the total 21 Param Vir Charkras ( PVC) awarded so far 16 have been for the operations in J&K and 15 out of that 16 decorated with PVC have been non- permanent residents of J&K but the state governments / leaderships have not been courteous enough to feel honored by making even their- PVCs ( what to talk of thousands of others fighting the militants / terrorists ) families permanent residents of J&K worth owing properties in J&K / worth their children joining J&K Government services / worth their children studying in government medical or engineering colleges in J&K ( that could be done even through administrative orders ).

The discriminatory laws /orders that are in force in J&K and are under question today are not particularly/ directly laid in the body of Art 35A but have been created by the State and are being provided constitutional cover by the Art 35A against any legal review. No doubt one can say even if Art 35A is there the bads can be rectified by the state by administrative orders or through the provisions that exist in Section- 8 & Section-9 of J&K Constitution but the fact of the day is that inspite of so many requests and suggestions ( even from court) the corrections have not been applied.

To be brief in case the J&K State Government or/ and the State Legislature do falter in their needed corrective approach towards administrative / legislative issues that appear anti people / anti basic fundamental natural justice but do not take to corrective measure even after some wise counsel is given it is Art 35A that provides constitutional protection to bad provisions ordered by state government / state legislature against any judicial review by the High Court / Supreme Court of India.

In view of such like environment more of the need has emerged to take the discussions on Art 35A out of political domains and limit it only with in legal domain ( as far as possible) because those who have so far held the reigns of governance in J&K and are this day so much agitated in view of some questions having been raised on the very legitimate existence of Art 35 as a valid Article of Constitution of India that they have gone to the extent of even cautioning the ‘judiciary’ for being careful while deciding the question on the validity of Article 35A ( they have in a way so far used / and want to use this article in future also more as ‘symbol’ of separate identity of ‘Kashmiriat’ in India and less for even the good of Permanent Residents of J&K ). All efforts must be there to defeat those who try to make existence Art 35A a political issue . So, the need of the hour is to take the Art 35A out of political domain debates and limit discussions / analysis only with in legal domain ( as far as possible)

Written by: Daya Sagar Sr Journalist & Analyst of J&K [email protected] / 9419796096