Supreme Court Grants Centre Four Weeks to File Response on Pleas Seeking Restoration of Jammu & Kashmir’s Statehood

New Delhi, Oct 10: The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Union Government four weeks to file its detailed response to a series of petitions seeking the restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, which has remained a Union Territory since the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing multiple petitions filed by various individuals, including academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and socio-political activist Ahmad Malik, urging the apex court to direct the Government of India to fulfil its assurance of restoring Statehood “at the earliest.” The petitioners reminded the court of the Centre’s commitment, given during the hearings on Article 370, to eventually restore Jammu and Kashmir’s full statehood.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, sought additional time, stating that while peaceful elections had been conducted in the Union Territory last year and a democratically elected Government was in place, security concerns remained. “Over the last six years, substantial progress has been made in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the recent Pahalgam terror attack and certain other incidents must be factored in before taking a final decision on restoring Statehood,” he said. Mehta also added that the Centre was holding consultations with the J&K administration and reviewing the ground situation carefully.

Calling the issue sui generis, unique and complex,Mehta said it involved “wider national concerns.” He accused some individuals of portraying a “grim and misleading picture” of the region internationally, arguing that such narratives undermine the progress achieved in recent years.

Chief Justice Gavai acknowledged that the Union Territory continued to face security challenges, referencing the Pahalgam attack, but allowed the Centre’s request for additional time to respond formally.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for petitioner Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, reminded the court that the Centre had previously promised Statehood restoration in 2023. “Much water has flowed since then,” he said pointedly. Mehta countered, “And blood too,” emphasizing that the situation remained sensitive. The exchange between the two prompted the Chief Justice to intervene humorously, telling Mehta to “let him complete his submissions,” drawing light laughter in the courtroom.

Sankaranarayanan further urged that the case be placed before a five-judge Constitution Bench, given that the Article 370 verdict had also been delivered by a bench of similar strength. He clarified that the petitioners were not seeking to reopen the abrogation issue but merely asking for implementation of the Centre’s assurance within a reasonable timeframe.

Opposing this plea, Solicitor General Mehta argued that such directions could not be sought “at the behest of interveners” and that the matter required careful governmental consideration rather than judicial enforcement of political commitments.

Adding weight to the petitioners’ arguments, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone, contended that the continued denial of Statehood undermines India’s federal structure. “If a full-fledged state can be converted into a Union Territory and left so indefinitely, what does that say about federalism? The J&K Assembly itself passed a resolution last year demanding Statehood. Keeping J&K as a Union Territory sets a dangerous precedent,” she cautioned. Guruswamy cited Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution, asserting that these provisions do not contemplate the conversion of a state into a Union Territory. “If this is allowed, any state could be downgraded for political convenience, tomorrow it could be Uttar Pradesh or Tamil Nadu,” she warned.

Meanwhile, counsel representing a group of Jammu-based lawyers highlighted the lack of employment opportunities, stalled development projects, and budgetary stagnation in the region. “Despite isolated terror incidents, peace has largely prevailed. Tourist inflows are strong, and the Vaishno Devi Yatra continues without disruption. Security cannot be an endless excuse for delaying Statehood,” the counsel argued.

Mehta, however, defended the Government’s record, stating, “Jammu and Kashmir has progressed tremendously. People are content; 99.9 percent of them consider the Government of India as their own. These pessimistic portrayals belong to another forum, not this court.”

The petitions argued that the delay in restoring Statehood amounts to a violation of the federal structure, which is part of the Constitution’s basic framework. The pleas emphasized that both the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections in J&K were conducted peacefully, with no significant security disturbances, thus negating the Government’s justification for continued delay.

“There are no credible impediments — neither violence nor instability that should prevent the Union of India from honouring its solemn assurance of restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s Statehood,” the petitions stated.