Congress urges BJP to clear its stand on Article 35 A

The Congress Party on Monday urged the e Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to clear its stand in connection with Article 35 A.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said that the nation is confused as to what is BJP's stand in regard with special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir.

"The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) should make its stand clear. Sometimes they talk of scrapping Article 370. Similarly they talk of anti-35 and at times they talk pro it. The nation is confused," said Surjewala.

Earlier in the day, talking about Article 35A, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh had said that the government will never take any step, which will hurt the sentiments of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

"The government didn't initiate anything on Article 35 A nor went to the court. I assure that the government would never take step which hurts sentiments of people of Jammu and Kashmir," Singh said while addressing the crowd on his three day tour to the valley.

Article 35A of the Indian Constitution is an article that empowers the Jammu and Kashmir state's legislature to define "permanent residents" of the state and provide special rights and privileges to those permanent residents, while article 370 gives special status to the state of J&K in the Indian Union.

Article 35A was added to the Constitution by a Presidential Order in 1954 and accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir. It also empowers the state's legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on grounds of violating the Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution.

It has become a centre stage of controversy after a second plea was filed by Charu Wali Khanna, a lawyer and former member of the National Commission for Women, challenging Article 35A of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which deal with the "permanent residents" of the state.

The plea has challenged certain provisions of the Constitution which deny property right to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which makes such women from the state to lose rights over property, also applies to her son.