“It’s not the time for Politics”, says Rana on Domicile Law

National Conference Provincial President Devender Singh Rana has said that the Government has made a big mistake while framing of new Jammu and Kashmir Domicile rules. He said that the amended domicile law does not include Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) residents in it.

In an interview, Rana said that when it comes to Domicile Law for whole Jammu and Kashmir territory, then it includes Kashmir Valley, Jammu region and Pak occupied Kashmir too which has Gilgit-Baltistan, Mirpur, Muzaffarnagar etc.

As the Government of India issues notification for Domicile of Jammu and Kashmir to protect the rights of locals and despite being recognized by the Government of India as original inhabitants of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir State, these PoK families don’t qualify the criteria fixed for their eligibility as Domicile of J&K Union Territory.

Provincial President also questions the government that why existing Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) holders need Domicile Certificate to apply for any job.

According to him, it may seem that obtaining a certificate in a few days is an easy process but for the people who are living in far-flung areas, it is not that easy. Also, standing in long queues to obtain the certificate may create chaos for people and for administration as well.

NC leader further said that “it’s not the time for politics to play as we already have a COVID_19 Pandemic to deal with.” And so, he demands the amendments to be recognised and made full justice with the Pok residents and for the PRC holders too.

Earlier, National Conference (NC) on Tuesday opposed Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020 and Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Domicile Certificate (Procedure) Rules 2020.

In a statement issued, the NC leader Omar Abdullah stated that both the SO 1229 (E) Domicile law and SO 166 prescribing the procedure for grant of Domicile Certificate are made in exercise of power under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, challenged in a number of petitions before the Supreme Court. “The hearing before the Constitution Bench has commenced and is proceeding ahead,” the statement said.