The Peoples Democratic Party on Wednesday said senior leader and MP Muzaffar Hussain Baig and party counsel will fight the legal challenge to the validity of Article 35A in the Supreme Court on the next date of hearing.
“Veteran PDP leader and MP from Baramulla, Muzaffar Hussain Baig, along with party’s legal counsel will fight the assault being launched against the State’s special position in the Supreme Court of India and will remain present in the court on next hearing slated to be held on August 27,” Peoples Democratic Party chief spokesman Rafi Mir said on Wednesday.
Mr. Baig, an alumni of Harvard Law School, served as the advocate-general of Jammu and Kashmir from 1987-89 before joining politics.
Mr. Mir said PDP president Mehbooba Mufti held a detailed meeting with party’s top leadership over the present political situation and measures needed to be taken to defend Article 35A in the apex court.
“It was unanimously agreed during the meeting that the special position accorded to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the Constitution of India needs to be protected on all fronts and that the party will remain in the forefront to defend it in the Supreme Court,” He said.
Top lawyers
Mr. Mir said it was highlighted how the PDP while being part of the coalition with the BJP took “drastic and vital measures” for the defence of Article 35A and the government had engaged the top lawyers of the country for the purpose. Ms. Mehbooba emphasised that the fight to safeguard Jammu and Kashmir’s special status will be carried forward with the same zest, he said.
The Supreme Court had, on August 6, said a three-judge bench would decide whether the pleas challenging Article 35A should be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for examining the larger issue of alleged violation of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A. Khanwilkar had adjourned the crucial hearing on as many as five petitions “to the week commencing from August 27” on the grounds that they pertained to the challenge to a Constitutional scheme and could not be heard as the third judge, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was not present on that day.
