The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Centre four weeks to file its response to multiple petitions seeking the restoration of statehood to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the petitions filed by academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and socio-political activist Ahmad Malik, who urged the implementation of the Centre’s assurance to restore J&K’s statehood “at the earliest.” The assurance was earlier made during the hearings on the abrogation of Article 370.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the bench that while peaceful elections were conducted in the region last year, the government required additional time to assess the situation in light of continuing security challenges, including the recent Pahalgam terror attack.
“Elections were held peacefully and an elected government is in place. Over the last six years, substantial progress has been made in Jammu and Kashmir. However, certain recent incidents such as the Pahalgam attack must be factored in before a final decision,” Mehta said, adding that consultations with the J&K administration were ongoing.
Calling the matter sui generis (unique), Mehta emphasized that while the government acknowledged its earlier assurance, “several factors need to be considered before restoring statehood.” He also alleged that certain groups were spreading a grim and misleading picture of the Union Territory.
Chief Justice Gavai noted that security remained a serious concern in the region, citing the Pahalgam incident. When senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Zahoor Bhat, said “Pahalgam happened under their watch,” Mehta objected sharply, saying, “It is under our government. I object to this.”
Sankaranarayanan argued that the Centre had previously assured the court of restoring statehood in 2023, adding, “Much water has flowed since then.” To this, Mehta retorted, “And blood too. This is a citizen before the Supreme Court who treats the Government of India as your government and not my government.”
Sankaranarayanan also urged that the matter be placed before a five-judge Constitution Bench since the Article 370 verdict was delivered by one. He clarified that the petitioners were not reopening the abrogation issue but merely seeking enforcement of the Union’s commitment “within a reasonable timeframe.”
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone, contended that the prolonged delay in restoring statehood was eroding the federal structure of the Constitution. “If a state can be converted into a Union Territory like this, what does it mean for federalism?” she asked. She added that the J&K Assembly had already passed a resolution demanding statehood a year ago and warned that continuing as a UT “sets a dangerous precedent.”
She cited Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution, saying they did not permit converting 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,” another counsel added.
The CJI intervened when the Solicitor General objected to the remarks, saying, “Why are you getting agitated? Let him complete the submissions,” drawing mild laughter in the courtroom.
Counsel representing Jammu-based lawyers argued that the delay in statehood had led to unemployment and stagnation in development. “There is hardly any developmental work in the Jammu region. Despite incidents like Pahalgam, peace has largely prevailed and tourism is flourishing. Security cannot be a perpetual excuse,” they said.
Responding, Mehta said Jammu and Kashmir had witnessed significant progress. “Everyone is happy; 99.9% of people consider the Government of India as their own. These arguments belong elsewhere, not in this court,” he asserted.
The petitioners’ plea warned that further delay in restoring statehood would “erode democratic representation” and amount to a “grave violation of federalism, a basic structure of the Constitution.” It added that both the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections were conducted peacefully in J&K without major security concerns, and therefore, “there is no impediment preventing the restoration of statehood as assured by the Union of India.”
