No Woman Loses Property Right In J&K If She Weds A Non-State Topic

As the argument rages on about the Short Article 35A, Jammu and Kashmir continues to be on the edge. Numerous outside the state are passionate, believing that if the Article is gone, people from the mainland India will rush to the northern state and settle there. Numerous in J&K fear that the state could become another Xingjian. The petitions versus the Post 35A, which debars Indians from outside J&K from acquiring land and getting state federal government jobs in the state, are seen more as political in nature than legal.That the petitions challenging the Post 35A were filed only after the BJP concerned power at the Centre has actually contributed to the apprehensions amongst people. Mainstream regional political parties such as the National Conference or the Peoples Democratic Celebration declared that lies are being infected make the Article 35A and Article 370 as an election issue.The very first petition was filed in 2014 by a non-governmental organisation called We the Citizens, which is commonly believed to be associated to the RSS, arguing that the Post 35A is “unconstitutional”. Later on in 2015, West Pakistan Refugees submitted a petition versus the Post on the grounds that it creates a”privileged”class of permanent citizens who are entitled to different rights.Two females, Dr. Charu Wali Khanna and Seema Razdan, in their petitions, argued that the Short article promotes “gender predisposition and

discrimination “. Khanna has actually said she has”anecdotal proof”that she is a state topic as her ancestors had actually left Kashmir throughout the Afghan rule(1752-1819). She has no documents to support her claims. Envision, Khanna moving to Assam at the time of NRC with this argument!The fact is that if a woman from J&K weds outside the state, she does not lose home rights, something the High Court had settled a very long time earlier. Former chief minister Omar Abdullah said on record that his sisters, who are married outside the state, own residential or commercial property in Kashmir as much as he does.Are then the Article 370 and the Article 35A, which provide the unique positions to Jammu and Kashmir, the just such posts in the Indian Constitution?The Post 371A of the Constitution of India state:”Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -(a)no Act of Parliament in respect of– (i )religious beliefs or social practices of the Nagas, (ii)Naga customary

law and procedure,( iii )administration of civil and criminal justice including choices according to Naga popular law, (iv )ownership and transfer of land and its resources, will use to the State of Nagaland unless the legal Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides.”The Post 371G on Mizoram checks out:” Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,- (a) no Act of Parliament in regard of– (i)spiritual or social practices of the Mizos,( ii )Mizo popular law and treatment,(iii )administration of civil and criminal justice involving choices inning accordance with Mizo Customary law,(iv )ownership and transfer of land, shall apply to the State of Mizoram unless the Legal Assembly of Mizoram by a resolution so chooses.”Legal specialist AG Noorani states:”This arrangement (Short article 371A )placed in 1962 clearly bars the Parliament of India from making any law in respect of ‘ownership and transfer of land’in Nagaland as well as’its resources’. If some people single out

Kashmir for hostile attention due to the fact that of Short article 370A and 35A of the Constitution of India, it is for factors not hard to look for.”When the Short article 35A was challenged, at first the problem was flagged by the National Conference and the PDP. Later on, separatists leapt in and argued that the government of India is out to “change demography of the state having more than 70 %Muslim population,

which might impact the final resolution of Kashmir “. As the separatists now spearhead the agitation in Kashmir versus tempering with Post 35A, Omar Abdullah didn’t lose out on the chance to take potshots at them on Twitter.” Safeguarding #Article 35A is an indirect acceptance that J&K’s future lies within the Constitution of India otherwise how would it matter if it were struck down or diluted?,”Omar tweeted.” Kashmir has closed down to safeguard an arrangement of the Indian constitution. When was the last time anybody was able to frame that heading

?”asks Omar.In a method, Omar concerns the separatists for declining&dialogue offers under the Indian Constitution however revealing statewide strikes for keeping the constitutional arrangement undamaged.