A very soothing tweet by Dr. Jatinder Singh ji , a Union Minster, was circulated in social media on this 28th September reading :< "After discussion with #JammuKashmir LG Sh Manoj Sinha & CS Sh Subrahmanium, the UT Govt has agreed in principle to amend/modify rules for ease in issue of #DomicileCertificate. Formal orders being issued soon. This will particularly facilitate issuing Domicile Certificate to children producing PRC of any of the parents and women from outside married to PRC holder men”>. The MOS having taken up the issue with LG even when his specific area of operation is North East, though belated, surely deserves thanks.

 

 

 

Ofcourse it is also hoped that response of the Domicile Certificate (DC) issuing Authorities to large majority of applications of even PRC holders ( even online ) violating the limit of 5 days set for issue vide S.O 263 of 25 August and even the appellate Authority not responding to appeals with in 15 days must have also been an issue while discussion and suggestions (like treating PRC as DC) made in that regards too might have been taken care for relieving applicants and the Tehsildars/ Naib Tehsildars of avoidable pressures.

 

 

But still some questions could be raised keeping in view the Tweet & it’s ‘flow’ like

 

Q-1. Why could the tweet be not from the LG ..?

 

Q-2. In what capacity the MOS has tweeted, as Minister of the Union or as a local leader .?

 

Q-3 If done as a local leader why was it not by the BJP President of UT of J&K..?

 

Q-4. The tweet says that after discussion the UT Govt has agreed in principle to amend/modify rules for ease in issue of Domicile Certificate” hence the questions are (i) was there a need to modify or amend the rules, surely both mean differently ? (ii) the tweet refers to ‘in principle’ under lying the rules , does it mean that the definition of DC and rules for issue of DC were drawn in principle to retain the earlier gender discriminating policies of Maharaja’s Princely State of J&K / erstwhile State of J&K for keeping out the spouse & children of a PRC holder woman married to a non PR .?

 

Q- 5 if so then have not those who were working at ground level for carrying ahead the pious intentions of Hon’ble Prime Minister Narender Modi Ji who had ventured into an historical action on 5th August ( that no one could dare for 7 decades ) vide Presidential order C.O 272 for wiping out disgraceful inhuman custom of Gender Discrimination against woman in J&K have miserably failed to under stand what Modi ji wanted to do ? and..

 

 

Q-6 : the tweet at the same time also says that UT Govt has agreed in principle to amend/modify rules for ease in issue of Domicile Certificate , does the MOS at the same time mean to say that the denial of Domicile to the spouse and children ( even there has been instance that application of a PRC holder woman for her own DC too was accepted after pressure from media/ social activist ) was not due to some lacuna in the rules but it was due to lack of understanding of rules at the level of the Competent Authority and in case so then why to amend S.O 166 rules ,government could simply issue a circular of clarifications .?

 

Q-7 In Domicile Definition that was drawn by the Union Home Ministry, were the incompletenesses left in the definition inadvertently or in principle the GOI meant like that only .?

 

Q-8 Was it only after some pointed references were made by the stake holders that the GOI tried to remove some short comings as regards the Permanent Residents of ( PRs) of erstwhile State of J&K that reference of PRC holders { as a category ,that otherwise no where appeared in the Definition of Domicile that was added as Section- 3A in THE J&K CIVIL SERVICES (D&R) ACT - Act No. XVI of 2010 vide orders S.O 1229 of 31-03-2020 & S.O 1245 (E of 03-04-2020) } was got inserted by order of LG when Rules for issue of DC were drawn out vide S.O. 166 of 18-05-2020..?

 

 

Any how let those who believe in gender equality before law hope fully hope that some order regarding amending S.O 166 that had to come sooner or later now atleast comes with Dr. Jatinder Singh Ji also coming to support and this time the amendment comes complete in all respects covering at least what has been proposed on 27th September and not like the incomplete amendment to SRO-202 of 30-06-2020 that was issued vide notification S.O 194 of 17-06-2020 ( Jammu and Kashmiri Special Recruitment ( amendment) rules 2020 amending SRO-202 of 30-06-2020) where under the increments and all allowances otherwise due were kept denied to all new appointees during the probation period of 2 years where as a tweet by the MOS of 15 June 2020 { even before the tweet of “ Mr Rohit Kansal Principal Secretary Power andrmation Department J&K of 15062020 tweeted@kansalrohit69 <“Administrative Council chaired by LG Sh. G C Murmu takes historic decision. No fresh appointments under SRO202. Probation period of old appointees reduced from 5 to 2 years. Massive step toward employee welfare.”>} had said < “LG Jammu and Kashmir Sh. Murmu just now called upon to convey that as suggested to him , SRO 202 will not be indicated in new recruitments rules and for existing appointees under SRO 202, the probation period has been reduced to two years, Must compliment him for prompt response”>. And going by the UT orders that followed one could infer that the MOS had suggested to the then LG to only reduce probation period from 5 to 2 years and keep the denial of increments/ allowances as they were where as TWEET had sent a message that SRO- 202 had gone.

 

 

(Writer is the patron, JKSC, Sr Journalist & Known Analyst of J&K Affairs)