Woman Professor filed petition challenging Article 35A: J&K High Court sought response from Govt. within 2 weeks
   24-Apr-2019

 
 Prof. Renu Nanda with her children (left); Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Right)
 
 
The momentum against the discriminatory and unconstitutional provision Article 35A has been increasing, as more and more victims are coming out and challenging it in the court of law. Recently, the Professor of Jammu University Prof. Renu Nanda has challenged this controversial provision in J&K High Court. In her petition, Prof. Renu has mentioned that Article 35A violates the fundamental rights of the women. She has also requested the J&K High Court to grant PRC to her two children Keshav Kumar and Madhav Kumar.
 

 
 
 
Prof. Nanda married a non-PRC holder but after sometime, she took divorce from her husband. At the time of divorce, both of her children were minors and their custody was given to her. Further, Prof. Nanda is working in the University of Jammu as Professor in the Department of Education and both the parents of Renu Nanda are state subjects and Permanent residents of the State of J&K under Section 6 of the Constitution of J&K. As Prof. Nanda has married a non-PRC holder, the discriminatory Article 35A did not confer PRC on her children.
 
Article 35A is anti-women
Article 35A ensures the dominance of male over female, though all the political parties are becoming champions of women empowerment. Because of Article 35A, the woman, her spouse, and children remain legitimate residents of J&K till the time she is marrying a PRC holder of the state. But if she chooses the life partner of her choice and he happens to be a resident of any other state of India, the woman has to move out of the state as the non-PRC holders are not welcomed to J&K because of this provision. Her offsprings are rendered illegitimate because they even cannot become permanent state subjects. The more traumatic situation would be with the separated and widowed woman, whose children have no future in the land where their mother was born. So, she has to make a choice between her own future and the future of her children but she cannot opt for both because of this provision.
 
During the course of hearing, the lawyer of Prof. Nanda, Adv. Ankur Sharma submitted that the discretionary power as in the present case where the children of a divorced female Permanent Resident of the state of Jammu & Kashmir are not being granted the PRC is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that unfettered discretion is a sworn enemy of the constitutional guarantee against discrimination. He added that Prof Renu Nanda is the mother of Keshav Kumar and Madhav Kumar and the Petitioners through the instant petition seeks relief for such injury caused or likely to be caused to the petitioners in the state of Jammu and Kashmir on account non-issuance of PRC. He also submitted that Article 35A encroaching upon their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequentially, all fundamental rights in the state of Jammu and Kashmir have been left redundant, otiose and subject to the arbitrary exercise of authority to the extent of children.
 
 
Justice Dhiraj Singh directed the J&K State Government to file counter affidavit within two weeks.