NEW DELHI: The Indian Government has informed the Supreme Court on Monday that the interlocutor for Jammu and Kashmir is currently discussing with all stakeholders the “sensitive” issues relating to the challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution, which empowers Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define its ‘permanent residents’ and bestow special rights and privileges on them.
Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that an interlocutor, appointed by the Centre to hold talks with all stakeholders to resolve the Kashmir issue, was discussing these issues and it was an “ongoing process.” Dineshwar Sharma, former director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), was appointed the Centre’s interlocutor for J and K on October 23 last year. Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of J and K and denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads such women from the state to forfeit their right over property, also applies to their heirs. The top court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging Article 35A in addition to the main writ petition filed by a group called ‘We The Citizens’. Several interlocutory petitions have been filed in support of Article 35A by various individuals and civil society groups seeking continuance of the special status to J and K. “This (discussion) is an ongoing process. It is a sensitive issue,” Venugopal told the bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
“Your lordships have seen what is happening in Kashmir. The interlocutor is in the process of discussing it,” the AG told the bench, which posted the matter for hearing on August 16. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the J and K Government, along with its standing counsel Shoeb Alam, referred to two judgements by the constitution bench of the apex court and said the issues raised in the pleas challenging Article 35A were covered by these verdicts. Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, also representing the state, said that since 1927, the position in this regard was clear and it cannot be decided like this.