There is a provision in this that if a girl (permanent citizen) is married to a person of another state or a person who is not a permanent citizen of the state, then her special right ends, she will not get any share in the ancestral property. Only his heirs. The court is hearing several petitions filed in this matter. The next hearing of the matter has been fixed for August 6. The state government stands in favor of 35A, arguing that the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, in its judgments in 1961 and 1969, held that the President has the right under Article 370 (1) (d) of the Constitution to pass constitutional orders. can. The state says that the matter was settled by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. In 2002, the High Court held by a majority decision that the right of a permanent citizen of the state in ancestral property and other matters would continue even if she marries a non-permanent citizen. The Supreme Court has called for a reply from the Center and the state on Article 35A. The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing that petition. In which there has been a demand to declare 35A unconstitutional. The bench also includes Justices DY Chandrachun and Khanwilkar. The Bench has passed this order by linking the petition with any other kind of petition. The appeal states that the President did not amend Article 35 while inserting 35A. 35A was included in the Constitution only through a notification. In this, apart from the original residents of the state, basic rights have been denied. Those born outside Jammu and Kashmir have neither the right to buy land here nor the right to take benefits in the schemes run by the state government. The petition referred to 272 sanitation workers who had gone to Jammu and Kashmir from Amritsar and Gurdaspur in Punjab. They were called by the state government in 1957 for work when there was a strike in the Jammu Municipality.