All Hindus Living In Kashmir Valley Cannot Claim Benefits Meant For Kashmiri Pandits
1. Background Context
The issue arises from the special relief and rehabilitation packages designed for Kashmiri Pandits who were displaced from the Kashmir Valley due to militancy in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Now, the question is: Do all Hindus living in Kashmir Valley qualify for those benefits?
The clear answer is No.
Because:
These schemes are not based on religion (i.e., being “Hindu”) but on the special status of Kashmiri Pandits as a displaced community.
The intention behind such benefits is to address forced displacement, loss of livelihood, and targeted violence, not merely religion or residence.
2. Constitutional Principle
Article 14 – Equality before law
Equal treatment requires that like cases be treated alike.
However, reasonable classification is allowed if it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of the policy.
Here, the differentia is: “Kashmiri Pandits displaced due to militancy.”
The objective is: “Relief and rehabilitation for those forced to leave their homes.”
Hence, other Hindus who never migrated/displaced cannot claim those benefits.
Article 21 – Right to Life
Rehabilitation schemes are aimed at restoring dignity and security to displaced Kashmiri Pandits.
But this does not extend to everyone of the same religion, only those who suffered forced displacement.
3. Judicial Precedents (Case Laws)
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
The Court held that classification is valid if it is reasonable and not arbitrary.
Relevance: Benefits for Kashmiri Pandits are a reasonable classification, not arbitrary religious favoritism.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness.
Relevance: Extending Pandit-specific benefits to all Hindus would be arbitrary and against Article 14.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case)
Court explained that special provisions can be made for disadvantaged groups if justified by social or historical circumstances.
Relevance: Kashmiri Pandits are a historically displaced group, hence entitled to special treatment.
State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974)
Court upheld classification based on intelligible differentia (here, educational qualifications).
Relevance: Here, classification is based on displacement status, not religion alone.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
Court held that right to education flows from Article 21.
Relevance: Similarly, right to rehabilitation and dignified life for displaced Pandits flows from Article 21.
4. Why All Hindus Cannot Claim
Not Religion-based: Benefits are not for "Hindus" as a whole, but for a sub-category (Kashmiri Pandits displaced).
Purpose-specific: Relief is linked to displacement due to militancy. Hindus who continued living in Kashmir Valley did not face forced exodus, hence they are outside the beneficiary class.
Legal Soundness: Extending benefits to all Hindus would dilute the very purpose of classification and violate equality.
5. Impact on India’s Legal and Social Framework
Protects targeted groups: Recognizes that certain communities face unique hardships.
Avoids arbitrariness: Ensures schemes are not religion-based but hardship-based.
Maintains constitutional equality: Balances Article 14 by ensuring only “like cases” get similar treatment.
📊 Summary Table
| Aspect | Kashmiri Pandits (Displaced) | Other Hindus in Kashmir Valley |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of Claim | Forced displacement, targeted violence, loss of livelihood | Continued residence in valley |
| Constitutional Backing | Reasonable classification under Article 14 | No intelligible differentia |
| Judicial Support | Indra Sawhney (1992), Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) | Not supported |
| Entitlement to Benefits | Yes – due to displacement & historical disadvantage | No – as they were not displaced |
| Effect of Extension | Justified, constitutional, humanitarian | Arbitrary, unconstitutional |
✅ Conclusion:
The relief packages are for displaced Kashmiri Pandits, not for all Hindus living in the Valley. This classification is constitutionally valid, judicially supported, and socially justified. Extending it to all Hindus would be arbitrary and defeat the very object of such schemes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments