During the 11th day of the hearing of the appeals against the scrapping of Article 370, the Chief Justice of India made his observations. He said, “The non-habitants of Jammu and Kashmir were deprived of some essential constitutional rights because of Article 35(A). All these privileges included only the residents of Jammu and Kashmir while excluding the non-residents. I agree with the centre’s judgment as the Constitution of J&K can not be placed higher than the center.” 

Article 35A, which was also abolished in mid-2019 along with Article 370, permitted the legislature of the former state to define ‘permanent habitants’ and provide them with superior privileges and benefits in terms of public occupation, unmovable possessions, and settlement. Emphasizing the constitutional rights that Article 35(A) violated, the Judge said, “Article 16 (1, which provides the right to employment under the State Government, was taken away directly as Article 35(A) was enforced. So while on one hand Article 16(1) was conserved, on the other hand, Article 35(A) instantly took away that basic right and was saved from any challenge on this ground,” “Similarly, Article 19, which permits the citizens of the country to live and settle in any part of the country was also violated by Article 35(A),” Chandrachud added.

“The decision to discard Article 35(A) has made the citizens of J&K on the level with the country and now they can also enjoy the welfare laws which were not enforced earlier in J&K.” said the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreeing with the decision of the center. He further gave some examples of welfare laws and stated “ Any modification made to the Indian Constitution would not apply to Jammu and Kashmir until it was invoked through Article 370. The Right to Education was not executed earlier in J&K till 2019, because this route was not obeyed at all,” The main arguing point for the center is to give all the states and their citizens equal rights and maintain equality.