BJP leader Ram Madhav
BJP leader Ram Madhav

Have faith in SC: Ram Madhav on Article 35 A

ANI | Updated: Aug 06, 2018 23:37 IST

New Delhi (India), Aug 6 (ANI): After the Supreme Court adjourned hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the validity of Article 35A, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary Ram Madhav on Monday said one should have full faith in the Top Court's wisdom.
"Concerned people who are making a hue and cry about this whole process should remember that it is not political establishment but judicial establishment which is looking into the matter. Some NGOs have approached Supreme Court stating that 35A was inserted in Indian Constitution without due procedure being followed. This issue is before the Supreme Court and the court will look into different aspects of it and will take an appropriate view," he told ANI.
Meanwhile, Congress leader Saifuddin Soz said the article protects the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and should not be struck down.
"This article protects the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and you cannot remove it just because the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) wants it. The BJP and the RSS are the same, they are against Article 370. However, I am not in favour of adjournment. There should be a solution, as soon as possible," he said.
The Top Court was scheduled to hear a batch of petitions today, which challenge the validity of Article 35A of the Constitution, which grants special privileges to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Jammu and Kashmir government had on Friday moved an application before the top court and sought to defer the hearing of the case, citing upcoming panchayat and urban local body elections.
Article 370 of the Constitution grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir, while Article 35A disallows people from residing in Jammu and Kashmir, buying or owning immovable property in the state, settle permanently, or get state government jobs.
A non-governmental organisation, We the Citizens, filed a petitioned in the Apex Court in 2014 to abolish the law on the grounds that it was "unconstitutional". (ANI)