The Supreme Court of India addressed a petition seeking directions for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

The court emphasised that any decision regarding the restoration must carefully consider “ground realities,” specifically referring to the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack where 26 people were killed. This attack, cited by the court, highlights ongoing security concerns in the region, which must be factored into the process of statehood restoration.

The petitioners, represented by senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Menaka Guruswamy, argued that the Union government had assured the restoration of J&K’s statehood following the Supreme Court’s December 2023 judgment. This 2023 verdict had upheld the abrogation of Article 370, which removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and bifurcated the former state into two Union Territories—J&K and Ladakh.

The court then directed that assembly elections would be held by September 2024, after which the restoration of statehood was promised “at the earliest and as soon as possible.” Assembly elections did occur peacefully in late 2024, with the National Conference forming the government.

Despite this, the petitioners contended that the government had made no concrete progress on restoring statehood, thereby violating the principle of federalism, a basic structure of the Constitution. They sought a time-bound direction from the court for the restoration, asserting that no security or violence-related impediments currently prevent this.

Opposing the petitions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Centre, argued that the situation in J&K is “peculiar” and complex, with multiple considerations relevant to restoring statehood.

He pointed out that the government had fulfilled its promise by conducting elections. The Centre requested eight weeks to respond fully, warning against attempts to “muddy the waters” at this sensitive time.

Chief Justice BR Gavai, heading the bench, underscored the importance of accounting for the prevailing ground situation, explicitly instructing petitioners to “remember what happened in Pahalgam.” The court has since posted the case for further hearing after eight weeks to let the Centre file its formal response.

The broader context is that the Supreme Court in December 2023 had upheld the abrogation of Article 370 on the grounds that the President had the constitutional power to do so under “special circumstances,” with the aim of fuller integration of J&K into the Union of India.

The abrogation ended temporary special status and resulted in the bifurcation of J&K into two Union Territories with limited autonomy compared to the earlier statehood.

Petitioners argue that the continued delay in restoring full statehood diminishes democratic representation and federal balance, especially after peaceful elections have been held.

However, the government maintains that security and other ground realities—including threats exemplified by the Pahalgam attack—are crucial factors that justify caution and delay in restoring statehood at this moment.

The situation continues to be politically sensitive, with leaders of Jammu and Kashmir's elected government and other stakeholders expressing divergent views on the court’s linkage of statehood restoration to security incidents.

The Supreme Court’s stance highlights the complexity of balancing constitutional promises, federal principles, electoral mandates, and security considerations in this conflict-prone region. The next hearing after eight weeks will be critical in determining the path forward for Jammu and Kashmir’s political status.

Agencies