With Additional Solicitor General (ASG) agreeing to the contention of the petitioners during August 31 hearing in the supreme court that gender discrimination is prevalent in article 35 A it has been established beyond doubt that the new Governor Satya Pal Malik has almost divorced the stand taken by his predecessor N N Vohar on challenging the petitions seeking abrogation of article 35 A in the supreme court of the country. Though Jammu & Kashmir Government should have been represented either by its Advocate General D C Raina but surprisingly the additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta originally a law officer of the government of India (GoI) appeared in the crucial August 31 hearing on a sensitive case like Article 35 A in the Supreme Court. The people are yet to know that what the brief law department of the Jammu & Kashmir government had given to Tushar Mehta for arguments during August 31 hearing on article 35 A and keeping in view the objections raised by the leadership of two biggest mainstream political parties National Conference and PDP a clarification from the Law Department of the state government and the advisor to governor holding the portfolio of law department has become imperative and also unavoidable.
Not only a clarification on the controversial argument of Tushar Mehta in which has agreed to the argument of the petitioners that Article 35 is a gender discrimination case is required but his disengagement as a counsel of Jammu & Kashmir government should be now the pressing demand of the mainstream political parties question Tushar Mehta’s questionable remarks over gender discrimination remarks in article 35 A casev before the supreme court of the country
Allowing Tushar Mehta the additional solicitor general who by virtue of law is the law officer of the central government and restraining its own Advocate general from appearing for the hearing on article 35 A is by all standards of understandability a laxity the new governor Satya Pal Malik has shown in handling with a sensitive case like Article 35 A. Interestingly last year the central government commanded and controlled by BJP allowed additional solicitor general in favour of Jay Shah the son of BJP President Amit Shah in a defamation case last year and this decision of Modi government is sufficient enough to indicate that Tushar Mehta is an approved man of BJP top brass which always assigns him top controversial assignments. So not only a clarification on the controversial argument of Tushar Mehta in which has agreed to the argument of the petitioners that Article 35 is a gender discrimination case is required but his disengagement as a counsel of Jammu & Kashmir government should be now the pressing demand of the mainstream political parties question Tushar Mehta’s questionable remarks over gender discrimination remarks in article 35 A casev before the supreme court of the country.
