The essence of effective governance lies in clarity of roles, transparency in function, and seamless coordination between institutions. In the context of Jammu and Kashmir’s new administrative arrangement, where a delicate balance must be maintained between the elected government and the office of the Lieutenant Governor, this clarity becomes not just desirable, but indispensable. The pending approval of the Business Rules by the Raj Bhawan has thus emerged not merely as a technical delay but as a pivotal moment that speaks to the larger need for restoring faith in institutional coherence and democratic functionality within the Union Territory.
The Business Rules, already approved by the Cabinet, are not symbolic gestures. They form the foundational code that guides the everyday operation of government—how decisions are made, who is responsible for what, and what procedural checks ensure accountability. In a region like Jammu and Kashmir, where governance has historically been caught between multiple layers of authority and recurring shifts in constitutional status, these rules serve as a lifeline for structured governance. Their non-approval so far sends a troubling message, one that risks blurring the lines between constitutional roles and eroding the public’s confidence in the new system. There is no question that security and law and order are the rightful domain of the Lieutenant Governor under the current structure. But beyond that, the elected government must be given the space to operate effectively and meaningfully. It cannot be expected to deliver on its promises to the electorate if its administrative framework remains in a state of limbo. The delay in the finalization of these rules, despite the Cabinet’s timely response to the queries raised by the constitutional authority, has led to unnecessary confusion, and worse, speculation over the motives behind the delay. The argument is not about confrontation; it is about clarity. It is about recognizing the spirit of cooperative federalism and allowing governance to function as a partnership—not a hierarchy. The people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have already endured extended phases of political uncertainty, deserve a government that functions with coherence, not contradictions. If the aim is to build a stable, transparent, and responsive administration, then procedural delays, especially on such critical matters, are counterproductive. Moreover, the Business Rules are not standalone documents; they form the procedural bedrock on which policies related to public service delivery, economic development, grievance redressal, and institutional accountability are built. Delays in their approval delay everything else. They disrupt continuity, hinder reform, and leave departments uncertain about their administrative protocols. At a time when the government is also trying to project a renewed push for transparency, local empowerment, and developmental momentum—through initiatives such as the Raabita public outreach centre and legal reforms—such procedural uncertainty stands in stark contrast to those intentions. It is also important to remember that this situation is being watched not just by local stakeholders but by national observers and international analysts who view Jammu and Kashmir as a test case of governance transition in post-reorganization India. The success or failure of this transition depends greatly on how effectively institutional coordination is managed. Timely action on such core administrative documents could go a long way in setting a positive precedent and reinforcing the spirit of democratic decentralization. In today’s governance discourse, where public trust is a scarce but essential commodity, delays—however bureaucratically explained—can feed cynicism. If the spirit of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act is to be upheld, it must begin with respecting the democratic process and facilitating the elected government in performing its role with dignity and clarity. Approving the Business Rules is not a favour; it is a constitutional necessity.
There comes a time in every government’s journey when it must choose between procedural delay and institutional maturity. This is one such moment. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are not asking for favours; they are asking for functional clarity, administrative transparency, and respect for the will they expressed through the ballot box. Delaying this clarity only risks unsettling a system still striving to regain its rhythm. The constitutional authority must act not only in the spirit of its mandated responsibility but also in recognition of the broader public interest. Let governance in Jammu and Kashmir be defined by unity of purpose, not ambiguity of process.