Kashmir Bureaucrat Again Creates Controversy Through Comments on Article 35A on Social Media.



New Delhi :


Kashmir IAS officer Shah Faesal has created controversy again despite the fact that he faces the prospect of a disciplinary action against him. He has recently been in news for repeatedly violating the rules specified for the conduct of the civil service. This time, Shah has gain entered the mud of controversy by claiming that the attempts to repeal Article 34A of the Constitution would mean an end of relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India.


Shah is presently pursuing a Edward S. Mason Mid-Career postgraduate course at the Harvard University.


The officer who is very active on the social media said that the Article 34A of the Indian Constitution can be easily compared to a nikahnama. Moreover, repealing it would mean that the relationship is simply over and nothing would remain to be done and to be discussed afterwards.



He also maintained that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir took place even before the Indian Constitution was formed. He said, “Yes and those who say Accession still stands forget that Accession was just like a Roka, because the Constitution had not come into force that time.”



Shah also said that continuation of the special Constitutional provisions for Jammu and Kashmir would not mean any kind of problem to the integrity and sovereignty of the country.


He said while talking on the matter, “Let’s not confuse the issue. Sovereignty and integrity of India can’t be challenged. Not at all. But the Constitution has kept some special provisions for J&K. It’s a unique arrangement. It isn’t a threat to India’s integrity at all.”


As per the Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly possesses the right to define its “permanent residents” and also the power to provide special rights as well as privileges to the so-called “permanent residents.”


However, a three-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge against the validity of the Article 35A.


Earlier, Shah faced a disciplinary action when he tweeted and described India as “Rapistan.”


In the notice given to Shah, it was mentioned “You have allegedly failed to maintain absolute honesty and integrity in the discharge of official duty and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant.”


In response, Shah had tweeted, “Love letter from my boss for my sarcastic tweet against rape-culture in South Asia. The Irony here is that service rules with a colonial spirit are invoked in a democratic India to stifle the freedom of conscience. I’m sharing this to underscore the need for a rule change.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *