A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, is currently hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A.
This Article in the Constitution empowers the Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) legislative assembly to define who is classified as a permanent resident of J&K, and confer rights and privileges upon them, while excluding any person from all other states from such benefits.
The Birth of Article 35A
This article came into existence in 1954 by means of a Presidential Order passed by the then President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, “The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954”. This was done by the President by virtue of the power conferred under Article 370 of the Constitution.
It is also important to take into account the legislative history of how this Article came into force.
In fact, the significance of legislative history was underlined by a Constitution bench of the SC in the recent case of power demarcation between the Delhi government and the L-G, where the court delved into the legislative history of Delhi as a union territory, to declare that Delhi, unlike other union territories, is sui generis, i.e. a different class in itself.
Article 35A is a result of the Delhi Agreement, 1952 between India and Kashmir, represented by Prime Minister Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah respectively.
It was agreed that the constitutional status of J&K as a unit of the Indian federation would involve granting special concessions to it, one such special concession that was agreed upon was certain immunity to the permanent residents of J&K. This meant that these permanent residents of J&K would be considered as citizens of India, and have special rights at the same time, which would be determined by the state legislature by means of law.
Arguments Against Article 35A
It has been contended by the petitioners that the said order was not made a law by the Parliament and amounts to amendment to the Constitution by the President which he has no power to do so. In Puranlal Lakhanpal v. President of India, a five-judge Constitution bench of the SC had ruled that the power of the President under Article 370 to efface certain provisions of the Constitution in application to J&K also includes power to amend a particular provision in application the state of J&K.
This means that if the President, by means of Presidential Order exercises his right to ‘modification’ under Article 370(1), which includes an amendment, it is valid as per the law of the land laid down by the SC in Puranlal Lakhanpal case.
Article 35A is doing nothing but giving effect to the legislative history of the constitutional status of J&K which must be held valid. Further, it has been alleged that Article 35A violates the right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution.
However, it must be noted that Article 14 permits reasonable classification, provided that it is based on ‘intelligible differentia’, and such ‘intelligible differentia’ must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the given case, object sought to be achieved is special protection to the permanent citizens of the J&K and such classification special citizenship is permissible within the constitutional scheme.
Why We Need Article 35A
Federalism is a device by which plural qualities of a society are articulated and protected. It is devised to secure both regional autonomy and national unity. It is a product of historical forces in plural societies. If the forces of national unity are very strong in such society, the central government shall have more powers. The strength of these regional and national forces changes from time to time, in keeping with changing social, economic and political conditions and compulsions.
Thus, federalism has been reflecting these changing historical conditions and compulsions. Federation is the existence of dual polity.
Federalism is a principle which defines the relationship between the Central Government at the national level, and its constituent units at the regional, state or local levels. A well-designed, and more importantly, a well-functioning system of federal governance, by virtue of its manifold benefits, plays a key role in promoting the stability and prosperity of nations, as the heights attained in development by the leading federations of the world – USA, Canada, Australia and Switzerland – demonstrate.
The framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to build a strong, united India.
India has adopted federalism to actualize and uphold the values of national unity, cultural diversity, democracy, regional autonomy and rapid socio-economic transformation through collective efforts. Article 35A in this sense, is a way to cherish and uphold the constitutional values and principles, envisioned by the framers of our Constitution.
(Snehil Kunwar Singh and Bhaskar Kumar are enrolled in the B.A.LL.B (Hons.) programme at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the authors’ own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)