Security was tightened in the Kashmir Valley amid a shutdown call on Thursday, on the eve of the Supreme Court hearing of petitions challenging Article 35A, which defines State subject laws. The J&K government will again seek its deferment.
An official said Section 144, which bars assembly of more than four people, was imposed in at least seven police stations in Srinagar.
Additional security personnel were deployed in all volatile pockets to keep the protesters at bay.
Several Hurriyat leaders, including Syed Ali Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, were placed under house arrest.
The shutdown crippled daily life in the Valley. Educational institutions, offices, banks and markets remained closed. Negligible traffic plied on the roads. Train services were also suspended. Scores of families cancelled marriages scheduled for Thursday and Friday. Pir Panjal’s Rajouri and Poonch districts also joined the protest.
It’s for the third time this month that the Kashmir Valley observed a shutdown against the alleged move to repeal the Article, which grants privileges to locals in jobs and property. Earlier this month, the SC deferred the hearing as all the three judges were not present on that day.
All regional parties, including National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party, have warned against scrapping the Article. All major political parties in Kashmir have hired lawyers to defend the Article in the SC. Many civil society groups, including the Kashmir Bar Association, have filed separate intervention applications. The BJP has maintained it will go by the decision of the SC.
“Let the court decide the fate of the Article, which is a roadblock in the course of J&K’s development,” said BJP leader Altaf Thakur.
Meanwhile, the State government has again pleaded for deferment of the case, citing preparations for the upcoming panchayat and municipal elections.
J&K’s standing counsel in the SC, Shoeb Alam, said the government will on Friday seek adjournment of hearing on account of the polls.
CPI (M) leader M.Y. Tarigami, among six persons who filed intervention applications in the case, said, “The special status guaranteed to the State under the Constitution of India, which has assumed a permanent feature, requires protection as any alteration would be against the policy of federalism envisaged by the framers of the Constitution.”
He said Article 35-A is a part of the fundamental right under Part-III and is not in violation of any other fundamental right, including Article 14.
Published - August 30, 2018 09:40 pm IST
