Article 35 A, which was incorporated in the constitution in 1954, to give special rights to the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir, was challenged in the Supreme Court by the BJP-leader and right-wing activist Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya, on 27th August. Article 35 A says that the President can make certain modifications and exceptions in the constitution for the benefit of the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

How sensitive is the Article and the section under which it was added (Article 370) is not an unknown fact. So unsurprisingly, agitation and riots have emerged in Kashmir Valley since the news has come up circling over the Kashmiris. The challenge to the validity of their “special rights and privilege” in jobs, education, property, scholarships, and other public welfare schemes is definitely problematic.

I don’t think this is how we need the omnipresent “Kashmir issue” in the Indian politics to be resolved. That too in the name of Article 35A opposing the basic fundamental rights of Indian citizens, as Ashwini Kumar stated in his petition. Earlier, there were demands of scrapping off Article 370 completely from the Indian Constitution, and for those who needed modifications in the Article, this is not the kind of modification that is needed.

Some would say that Article 35A is contradictory to Article 368(i), as the latter empowers only the Parliament to modify the laws in the constitution, and not the President. And that the Article is invalid, null and void, as the Nehru Government did not keep it in front of the Parliament for discussion. Moreover, the Constituent Assembly, never stated the Article to be a permanent amendment in the constitution. It was incorporated temporarily to bring peace in the Valley at the time of turmoil in the aftermath of the Independence and Partition.

Even this, according to me, does not justify the invalidity of the Article as the motive for which the constitution was amended for Article 35A’s inclusion, still remains unachieved.