On Thursday, while hearing a petition for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, the Supreme Court observed that the “ground realities” in the Union Territory must be taken into account, specifically referencing the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam.
The Apex Court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshid Ahmad Malik, who contended that the Union government had failed to honour its assurance, recorded in the Court’s December 2023 judgment upholding the abrogation of Article 370, that statehood would be restored “at the earliest and as soon as possible” after Assembly elections in the region.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, reminded the Bench that the 2023 Constitution Bench had refrained from examining the constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, solely because the Solicitor General had assured that statehood, excluding Ladakh, would be reinstated. “It has been 21 months since that judgment… there has been no movement, despite the Court trusting the Union when they made this statement,” he submitted.
The petitioners contended that the prolonged delay undermines the principle of federalism, a part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and that holding Assembly elections before restoring statehood distorts the representative character of governance. They also asserted that the peaceful conduct of recent elections demonstrated that there were no insurmountable security impediments.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, opposed the plea, terming it not maintainable. He submitted that the “peculiar position” of the region required nuanced decision-making and sought eight weeks to obtain instructions. “We assured statehood after elections… I don’t know why this issue is agitated now. This particular State is not the correct State to muddy the water,” the SG remarked, requesting additional time.
The Chief Justice interjected, while observing, “Ground realities must also be considered; what occurred in Pahalgam cannot be disregarded.”
The Court adjourned the proceedings for eight weeks, directing the Union to submit its response in the meantime. Counsel for other interested parties, including Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy representing applicant Irfan Lone, requested that all pending petitions concerning the restoration of statehood be consolidated and considered by a dedicated Bench. Following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act. While the Supreme Court, in 2023, upheld this reorganisation, it expressly recorded the Solicitor General’s statement that J&K’s Union Territory status was intended to be temporary.
Picture Source :
