Srinagar, Oct 29 (GNS): As Supreme Court of India will hear plea against Article 35A, state’s law minister Abdul Haq Khan, Advocate General Jahangir Iqbal Ganie and his team are camping in New Delhi.

Depicting seriousness of the government towards the crucial issue, sources told news agency GNS, Abdul Haq Khan along with AG arrived in national capital early on Sunday. The state has engaged top lawyers of the country to defend the Article 35A.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwikar will hear the petition.

On July 17, this year, a two-judge bench of the court referred the case to the three-judge bench.

A little-known non-governmental organisation “We the Citizens” has approached the top court, seeking scrapping of Article 35-A which defines special privileges enjoyed by permanent residents of J&K in matters related to employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlements and scholarships.

In its affidavit, the state government has sought dismissal of the petition while the government of India has not shown any liking to file its affidavit in the case, saying that it involves question of law.

Article 35-A was extended to J&K through the ‘Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order’ issued by President Rajendra Prasad on May 14, 1954. It was specifically devised to grant protection to state subject laws that had already been defined under the Maharaja’s rule and notified in 1927 and 1932.

If Article 35-A goes, J&K will lose all the special privileges including the state subject law, right to property, right to employment, and right to settlement, according to legal experts.

The top court has already clubbed other petitions including a petition filed by Charu Wali Khanna challenging Article 35-A of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which deal with the “permanent residents” of the state with the petition by NGO “We the Citizens.”

“Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution restricts the basic right of women to marry a man of their choice by not giving the heirs any right to property if the woman marries a man not holding the permanent resident certificate. Her children are denied a permanent resident certificate,” Charu has pleaded. (GNS)