Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the Supreme Court that Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, which gave special rights to the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir, created an “artificial class” and deprived many people of their fundamental rights.
Mehta said that Article 35A created a new provision in the Constitution that only applied to “permanent residents” of Jammu and Kashmir. This meant that people who were not permanent residents, such as safai karamcharis (sweepers) who had lived in the state for many years, were completely deprived of all fundamental rights.
He also pointed out that Article 35A discriminated against women, as a woman who married someone from outside Jammu and Kashmir lost her permanent resident status.
Mehta argued that Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status, was always meant to be a temporary provision. He said that the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A would benefit the people of Jammu and Kashmir by opening up the region to investment and tourism.
He also said that the political parties in Jammu and Kashmir who were challenging the abrogation of Article 370 were misleading the people. He said that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had realized that they had been deprived of many opportunities because of Article 370.
Mehta concluded by asking the Supreme Court to have a “relook” at the matter from the perspective of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He said that the abrogation of Article 370 would bring the people of Jammu and Kashmir at par with the rest of the country and would apply all welfare laws to them.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter on Tuesday.
