Article 35A is judicial matter and not a political one, says Ram Madhav

New Delhi, Aug 6: Asserting that there is no need to raise a "hue and cry" over the hearing on Article 35A in Jammu and Kashmir, BJP leader Ram Madhav on Monday said the issue should not be politicised as it is a judicial matter.

"Some NGOs have approached Supreme Court stating that 35A was inserted in Indian Constitution without due procedure being followed. This issue is before SC and court will look into different aspects of it and will take an appropriate view," Madhav told news agency ANI.

"Concerned people who are making a hue and cry about this whole process should remember that it is not political establishment but judicial establishment which is looking into the matter and one should have full faith in SC's wisdom in looking into the matter," he added.

Earlier today (August 6), former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti said the Article 35A issue reaching the doorstep of the apex court "has unleashed a wave of anxiety and panic" among the people of the state.

She said that the Supreme Court's decision to adjourn the hearing on a petition that challenged Article 35A has "brought interim relief to the people of Jammu and Kashmir", adding, "the deferment of hearing on Article 35 A is not a solution".

The Supreme Court today adjourned hearing on a petition that challenged Article 35A in Jammu and Kashmir. The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra said that it would examine whether Article 35A violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court while adjourning hearing on the matter said that it would consider the challenge to the article as we as whether it should be referred to a five judge Bench or not. This challenge to the article has come after 60 years, the Bench said.

The Bench was appraised of the situation in the Valley ahead of the hearing. The Bench said that before every hearing there is a shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. We will only see if this provision goes against the basic structure of the Constitution or not the SC also said.