Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In view of the Elections, to be held in the state of Jammu and Kashmir between September and December, the SC postponed the hearing of the case relating to the constitutionality of Article 35A.The bench observed that an arrangement must be made so that the local lawyers in state do not continue the strike due to the anticipation of hearing. Due to the disturbance while hearing, the ASG prayed that the hearing must be adjourned till the completion of the election process so as to prevent the lapse of the grant of Finance Commission.
The Attorney General further agreed that the election issue is so sensitive that large number of companies of parliamentary forces have been deployed in the state because of the law and order situation. The senior lawyers however questioned the relevancy between elections in Jammu and Kashmir and judgment of the apex courtby stating that the situation will always remain sensitive.It was remarked by the Chief Justice that when the validity of the Constitutional provision is challenged, it cannot be referred as such to the Constitution bench. He further noted that Article 35A has been challenged after 60 years. The Solicitor General replied to this by stating that Article 35A has been incorporated only by the virtue of Constitution Order 1954 and was not found in original constitution.
The Chief Justice said that while dealing with the constitutional validity of Article 35A, all the interim applications in respect of admissions to state colleges must be heard.The matter of the right to education being denied to the children of woman married to non-state subjects was also brought before the Court but the same has been suggested to be heard after the elections. The senior counsel referred to the judgment in the case, Captain Harish Uppal and contended that the lawyers do not constitute trade union and therefore the strike is not justified. Justice Dipak Misra also noted that as the matter is pending before the apex Court, therefore the bench cannot ask the senior advocate to move to the High Court.
It was alleged in the hearing that the Article attempts to create a theological state in creating persons as second-class citizens and the persons who have approached the Court are not taking part in the elections.
86540
103860
630
114
59824