I had to read The Chindu (a new paper I generally refuse to read) to understand the full context. This is what the Chief Justice said. "Article 35A gave special rights and privileges to permanent residents and virtually took away the rights for non-residents. These rights included the right to equal opportunity of State employment, right to acquire property and the right to settle in Jammu and Kashmir"."Article 35A of the Indian Constitution that was scrapped in 2019, ‘took away fundamental rights'"
The Chief Justice is clear in his observation that fundamental rights of Indian citizens, which were available to them else where, is not given to them when it comes to J&K. So the CJI is right in observing that 35A was an Article which took away fundamental rights (of Indian citizens in the state of J&K).Articles 14 to 30 in Part III of Constitution of India is what is generally considered to be the fundamental rights available to Indian citizens. Articles 32 to 35A were more related to right to constitutional remedies, and Article 35A actually put a block on seeking such remedies when it comes to the state of J&K.
Indian Constitution allows reasonable classification, but not class legislation. Article 35A, IMHO was a kind of class legislation by which a large class/group of Indians were denied their fundamental rights just inside the state of J&K (which was available for them in rest of India).