The State government Wednesday looked for suspension of hearing on petitions testing the protected legitimacy of Article 35-A, two days in front of the hearing booked in the Supreme Court (SC) on August 31.
Standing direction for the State in the peak court, Shoeb Alam revealed to Rising Kashmir that the State government had looked for delay by virtue of the progressing arrangements for forthcoming Panchayat and Urban Local Bodies (ULB) surveys.
The application documented before the SC enlistment center peruses, “The undersigned would look for a deferment in the previously mentioned issue on August 31, 2018 by virtue of the progressing arrangements for the up and coming Panchayat and ULB surveys in Jammu Kashmir.”
Prior, amid the past hearing on August 6, the State government through its guidance had looked for postponement on a similar record, which, anyway was not engaged by the pinnacle court which at that point had recorded the case for August 31.
Noted legal advisor Zafar Shah said tolerating or dismissing the postponement request was the attentiveness of the court yet in the event that the application had the help of Government of India then the suspension was probably going to happen.
“In the event that GoI isn’t backing the use of the State government then the court will continue with the hearing in the issue,” Shah said.
He said the High Court Bar Association, a gathering for the situation, is prepared to contend the case if the suspension request of the State government is rejected.
National Conference (NC) General Secretary Ali Muhammad Sagar said the State government’s turn to look for suspension was a redundancy of a similar story.
“This isn’t the best approach to manage the issue which is so touchy. The State government ought to have stood firm and looked for dismissal of the requests testing Article 35-A,” Sagar said.
He said the requests were testing an article of the constitution of India.
“The Attorney General speaking to the Government of India was requested that by the SC clear the stand yet they have kept the equivocalness wagon on the roll,” the veteran NC pioneer said.
He said the State government’s stand was “terrible” and “unpleasant” in perspective of the grave concerns communicated by the general population over the State against any move to alter Article 35-A.
“The decisions of Panchayat and ULB can’t be a safeguard,” he said including that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) ought to likewise advise the general population concerning where they spend Rs 1 crore for guarding Article 35-A.
PDP Chief Spokesperson Rafi Ahmad Mir said the dismissal looking for was fine yet the State government ought to have approached with a remain on the issue.
“The State government’s safeguard doesn’t appear that hearty yet let us see what happens,” Mir said.
He said regardless of whether the issue was suspended till December because of decisions, the State government and GoI would need to stand firm at that point.
“In this way, they should stand firm now,” he said.
Congress Working Committee part and a gathering for the situation Tariq Hameed Karra said
the adjournment seeking application of the State government was “ironical” and it seemed that the State government wanted to keep the pot boiling over Article 35-A.
Awami National Conference (ANC) Chairman Muzaffar Shah and member Jammu Kashmir Civil Society Coordination (JKCSC) said the deferment plea seems a deliberate ploy to keep the matter hot.
“Such tactics will be detrimental for us. It will create more confusion among the people,” he said.
Shah said the matter should be heard in the court.
“Why is the State government afraid? SC has no jurisdiction here. Only our State legislature has that power,” he said.
In the last hearing on August 6, the State government had sought an adjournment of the hearing citing upcoming local bodies’ polls in the State and was supported by the GoI.
The lawyers for petitioners, however, vehemently opposed the adjournment plea and sought an early hearing after the bench clarified that it cannot take up the matter due to lack of quorum.
“Once you have challenged the constitutional validity of Article 35-A, a three-judge bench will decide whether they have to go before a constitution bench. A three-judge bench will determine it. A three-judge bench has been dealing with it,” the Chief Justice of India had said.
“A three-judge bench will consider whether it has to go before a constitution bench,” the court said, making it clear that the hearing had to be adjourned as Justice Chandrachud, one of the three judges of the bench, was not present.
The bench made it clear that under Article 145 (special provisions as to the disposal of questions relating to constitutional validity of laws) of the constitution, any challenge to the validity of a constitutional provision needed to be adjudicated upon by a larger bench.
In the last hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, representing the GoI, also supported the deferment plea filed then.
However, the petitioners opposed to Article 35-A, including the NGO ‘We the Citizens’, which was represented by lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha, opposed the adjournment plea of the State government.
When some lawyers insisted that an urgent hearing was needed, the bench asked, “Tell us, when the Article 35-A came into the Constitution in 1954.”