New Delhi: After a request made by the state and the central governments to delay the hearing for a collection of cases challenging Article 35A of the constitution in view of it creating unrest and affecting efforts to hold long-delayed local body elections by the end of this year, the Supreme Court deferred the date for hearing the case.

The law enacted in the state of Jammu and Kashmir legislature can decide who are permanent residents of the state and also can give them various special rights and privileges and on the same time can impose restrictions on others with regard to jobs, acquiring land, right to scholarships, settling in the state and other forms of aid.

The Article 35A of the Indian constitution has got support from a majority of the residents of the state but is opposed by others who claim that it violates many rights of the rest of the people of India.

The Apex Court deferred the hearing of the case pertaining to the Article 35A on Friday to the second week of January after the government of Jammu and Kashmir said that it has got plans to hold Panchayat elections in the state any time between the months of September and December and amid this, any kind of debate regarding the Article 35A could bring consequences for law and order problems.

There have already been several protests in this regard in the northmost state against the Supreme Court’s move to hear the challenges to the law.

The center too requested the Supreme Court for the hearing to be deferred.  “Large number of paramilitary forces are there. Let the elections go on calmly and thereafter hear these petitions in January or March. This issue has been very sensitive,” the center’s lawyer Attorney General K K Venugopal said.

One of the petitioners, meanwhile, reiterated the earlier stand regarding the Article 35A by saying that the law has prevented many youngsters from getting admission into professional colleges despite living in the state for 60 years. Another petitioner, who is a lawyer for Charu Wali Khanna, said that the law prevented her from buying property because she married a non-Kashmiri.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Jammu and Kashmir, completely agreed that this was solely an issue of gender bias and said, “There is an element of discrimination but the matter has to be heard fully.”

After the arguments were heard, Justice AM Khanwilkar observed: “When the state says there could be a law and order problem beyond their control how can we hear the case?”

Chief Justice Dipak Misra too posed question petitioners: “Article 35A came in 1954 and you challenge it after 60 years?”

When a lawyer for representing one of the petitioners said that even the Sabarimala Temple case had been filed after a long time, Justice Misra replied, “Sabarimala is not a constitutional issue but statutory issue.”

You May Also Read: 10 Startups Get Shortlisted For Google Launchpad Accelerator India Programme