Govt may review its stand on Article 35A

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is expected to take up next week the challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution amid growing indications that the Centre is considering changing its stand of aloofness from the bid to put an end to the provision which gives the Jammu & Kashmir government the rights to confer special privileges to those whom it defines as “permanent residents” of the state.

Although the Centre had sought multiple adjournments of the hearing, post-Pulwama it is inclined to revisit the issue. There are indications that it may change its stand to seek an expeditious hearing. In fact, sources said the government is also considering the option of promulgating an ordinance to scrap the provision which is key to the endurance of the “special status” provided to the state through Article 370 of the Constitution.

Article 35A prevents outsiders from acquiring any immovable property and denies property rights to women married to people from outside the state.


Government functionaries confirmed on Saturday that a review of the Centre’s stand in the SC on Article 35A is under way. They refused to confirm whether recourse to the ordinance route was an option, but emphasised that the pendency of the matter in court will not be a deterrent should the government choose to exercise it. “A matter being sub judice does not injunct the government from acting on it,” said a government source.


Article 35A also applies to legal heirs of women who marry people from outside the state. It was inserted in the Constitution on the advice of the Nehru government. The provision has been challenged on the ground that it is derived from a presidential order rather than a law made by Parliament which alone has the power to make, change and scrap laws. Its opponents have also argued that it is discriminatory, antithetical to the spirit of unity and oneness which underpins the Constitution, and anti-women.

The case has been pending in the SC since 2014 when an NGO, We the People, had filed a PIL. Subsequently, many people have approached the court on the issue and around 20 more petitions have been filed. The matter got listed 14 times in the court but no substantial hearing took place, leading to adjournments.