Challenging article 35-A not a big issue: Ganai

MAJID NABI. Dated: 8/19/2017 12:00:04 AM

SRINAGAR, Aug 18: Former Additional Advocate General of Jammu and Kashmir, Advocate Manzoor Ahmad Ganai Friday said that challenging Article 35 (A) is not a ‘big issue’ as Apex court has twice pronounced its judgment over its constitutional legality.
Ganai who was also Advisor to former Chief Minister, Gulam Nabi Azad said that the Supreme Court cannot strike down Article (35) as the judgments pronounced twice by it in 1961 and 1970 have upheld the constitutional validity of the said Article.
“There is no need to raise hue and cry over the issue as five judge constitution bench of Apex court has upheld the constitutional validity of Article 35 (A) twice in past hence it cannot amend its own rulings,” Ganai said.
He claimed that Supreme Court in 1961 in Puran Lal verses President of India and Sampat Prakash verses state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 has maintained that President has powers to confer such rights within Article 370 of Indian constitution.
“It’s in centre’s response that there should be wider debate over the matter people raised hue and cry, iI am quite sure that Article 35 (A) will not be abolished given Apex Courts past verdict over its authenticity,” added he.
He said that those claiming to be legal experts must understand that Article (35) has been challenged in past as well and the decision of the court was in favor Jammu and Kashmir state, hence there is no question of abolishing the same.
“This issue has been thoroughly debated by the judges in their judgments pronounced whenever Article 35 (A) was challenged. Supreme Court after considering every aspect of the matter and hearing parties reached to the conclusion that the Article is valid,” former AAG said.
He said that the writ petition filed by some New Delhi based NGO; We the Citizens have challenged the authenticity of Article 35 (A) in Supreme Court without bearing in mind its past verdicts.
“There is no fresh point raised in the fresh petition that was missed in previous two petitions, no new issue has been added to it. There must be some fresh material to challenge the constitutional act,” said Ganai.
He claimed that state government has engaged prominent lawyer Folly Nariman to counter writ petition filed against Article 35 (A) in Supreme Court and the points raised by him in the counter affidavit are strong and worth appreciation strong and worth appreciation,”
“I don’t agree with Omar Abdullah as to why centre did not file counter affidavit in favor of J&K as the points raised by the lawyer have been derived from past judgments of Supreme Court which are strong and worth appreciation,”

 

Video

The Gaza Crisis and the Global Fallout... Read More
 

FACEBOOK

 

Daily horoscope

 

Weather