Three-judge SC bench will decide whether to refer pleas against Article 35A to Constitution bench

During the hearing, the state government sought the adjournment of the hearing citing upcoming local body elections in the state which was supported by the Centre as well.

Published: 06th August 2018 09:35 PM  |   Last Updated: 07th August 2018 05:14 AM   |  A+A-

Justice Dipak Misra (PTI)

By Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it would first decide whether the pleas challenging Article 35A, which gives special rights to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir be referred to a five-judge constitutional bench for examining the larger issue.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar adjourned the hearing on five petitions to the week commencing from August 27 on the grounds that they pertained to the challenge to a Constitutional scheme and could not be heard as the third judge, Justice D Y Chandrachud, was not present on Monday.

During the hearing, the state government sought the adjournment of the hearing citing upcoming local body elections in the state which was supported by the Centre as well.

"Once you have challenged the constitutional validity of Article 35-A, a three-judge bench would decide whether they have to go before a Constitution bench," the CJI said.

When Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explained to the bench that the valley has called a bandh today in the wake of the hearing, CJI observed, "This (challenge) comes after 60 years. We will only see if this provision goes against the basic structure of the Constitution."

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.

Article 35-A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state. It also denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state.

The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their rights over property, also applies to their heirs.

The petitioners, opposed to the Article 35A, including NGO 'We the Citizens' opposed the adjournment plea of the state government.

The court's observation that the state has a minimal role in the judicial scrutiny of Article 35A, drew sharp observation from the counsel for the state government and others like National Conference and CPI(M).

Political parties, including the National Conference and the CPI-M, have moved the Supreme Court in support of Article 35-A that empowers the state assembly to define permanent residents for bestowing special rights and privileges to them. Ends.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp