Kashmir-based parties misleading all about domicile certificates

Jammu, June 30:The definition of State Subjects was given during Maharaja Hari Singh’s rule. The definition is given in Notification dated April 20, 1927, and it says.STATE SUBJECT DEFINITION1. Notification dated the 20th of April, 1927,No 1-L/84 – The following definition of the term `State Subject’ has been sanctioned by His Highness The term State Subject means and includes –Class-I: Class-II: Class-III: All persons, other than those belonging to Class-I and Class-II permanently residing within the State, who have acquired under a rayatnama any immovable property therein or who may hereafter acquire such property under an ijazatnama and may execute a rayatnama after ten years continuous residence therein.Class-IV: State Subjects were of four types, Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV.It is clear from even a cursory reading of the definition of Class-III that it was possible to acquire the status of State Subject of this class. The only requisite condition one had to fulfill was a residency period of 10 years. On fulfillment of this condition, even people coming from outside J&K, were eligible for becoming State Subjects, or bona fide domiciles of J&K.This was the correct legal position regarding the condition one had to fulfill before anyone could become a bona fide State Subject in J&K.After J&K became a part of India, and it ceased to be a Princely State, the nomenclature of State Subjects underwent a metamorphosis. They were later called Permanent Residents, domiciles of the state of J&K.On May 14, 1954, Article 35-A was added to the Constitution of India through a Presidential order. This article gave the right to define “Permanent Residents” to legislature of J&K.Accordingly, in exercise of these powers, the Constituent Assembly of J&K defined the term. It drastically changed the State Subject laws framed by Maharaja Hari Singh. The most significant change was in prescribing the date of May 14, 1944, as a cut-off. Only those who had entered the State of J&K before this date were eligible to become Permanent Residents.This first of all hit the Hindus and Sikhs who had escaped a communal holocaust played out at the time of Partition in West Punjab, which became a part of the new born nation of Pakistan.They had entered Kathua and Jammu districts contiguous to Sialkot district of Pakistan in 1947. The law to bar them from acquiring PRCs (Permanent Resident Certificates) was passed when they had already spent over seven years in J&KIn the normal course, according to Maharaja’s State Subject laws, they would have become eligible for PRCs in 1957 after staying in J&K for 10 years. Thus, a law was passed which conferred disability on them retrospectively.Generally, whenever a new law is passed, it is prospective in nature. Of course, laws having a retrospective effect are also passed but the retrospective application is only for the purpose of enabling.In 1957, Valmikis were brought in by the J&K government itself from Amritsar and Gurdaspur. However, they were never accorded the status of PRs. Under the Maharaja’s State Subject laws, the Valmikis would have become PRC holders in 1967, on completion of 10 years of residency.Similarly, the officials of the all-India cadres like IAS, IFS, IPS etc would have become eligible for PRCs on completion of 10 years of service. Now, much noise is being made against the issuance of domicile certificate to Navin Choudhary, IAS, of Darbhanga in Bihar. He is an officer of 1994 batch and in 2004, he could have got a PRC if the Maharaja’s State Subject laws were left untouched.Incidentally, Part III of the J&K Constitution, scrapped now, has enabling provisions for Muslims from the State who chose to migrate to Pakistan. If they came back, they would have got PRCs under Part III.The very same Part III was deliberately twisted in such a manner that West Pakistan refugees, mostly Hindus and a few Sikh families, Valmikis and others, all non-Muslims, were effectively barred from acquiring PRCs. The intent and purpose of Part III was thus to enable and empower Muslims. Simultaneously, dis-empowering non-Muslims.