Supreme Court Gives Centre 4 Weeks To Respond On Pleas Seeking Jammu and Kashmir Statehood Restoration

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday gave the Centre four weeks to file its response on a batch of pleas seeking restoration of statehood to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing multiple pleas, including those filed by academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and socio-political activist Ahmad Malik, pressing for the implementation of the Centre's assurance to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir "at the earliest".

They referred to the Centre's assurance on statehood for the union territory during the hearings on the abrogation of Article 370.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that elections in the region were conducted peacefully last year but the government required more time to evaluate the issue of restoring statehood in view of ongoing security concerns and the recent Pahalgam terror attacks.

"Elections were held in a peaceful manner 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, need to be factored in before taking a final call," the country's top law officer said.

He said consultations were underway with the Jammu and Kashmir administration on the issue of restoration of statehood.

"This is a sui generis (unique) problem and there are wider concerns involved. Of course, there was a solemn undertaking but several factors need to be considered," Mehta submitted.

He alleged that some people are spreading a specific narrative and giving a grim picture of the union territory.

During the hearing, CJI Gavai said the region continued to face security challenges and cited the Pahalgam terror attack.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Zahoor Bhat, said, "Pahalgam happened under their watch.." Mehta vehemently objected to the remark, saying, "What is 'their watch'? It is under our government. I object to this." Sankaranarayanan argued that the Centre had assured the court about restoring statehood in 2023 and said, "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 said that the matter be placed before a five-judge Constitution bench, given that the original Article 370 judgment had been delivered by a bench of similar strength.

He clarified that the applicants were not seeking to reopen the abrogation issue but merely enforcement of the Union's commitment "within a reasonable timeframe".

The solicitor general opposed the submissions, saying this cannot be done that too at the behest of interveners.

Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone, argued that the continuing denial of statehood undermines the federal structure of the Constitution.

"If a state can be converted into a Union Territory like this, what does it mean for federalism? The J-K Assembly passed a resolution a year ago calling for statehood. Allowing Jammu and Kashmir to remain a UT sets a dangerous precedent," she said.

Citing Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution, she added, "These provisions do not envisage converting a state into a union territory. The Union gave an assurance. What is the consequence of not honouring that assurance for federalism?" "If this is permitted, any state can be downgraded to a UT if the government is inconvenient. tomorrow, it could be Uttar Pradesh or Tamil Nadu. This has never happened in our constitutional history," another lawyer said.

The solicitor general interjected, accusing the counsel of attempting to "create a grim picture" of the union territory before the world.

"Why are you getting agitated? Let him complete the submissions," the CJI told Mehta, drawing mild laughter in the courtroom.

Counsel representing a group of Jammu-based lawyers submitted that citizens in the region were facing acute unemployment and stagnation in development projects.

"There is hardly any developmental work in the Jammu region. Legislators say they have no funds for local works. Despite incidents like Pahalgam, peace has largely prevailed and tourist inflows are high, and the Vaishno Devi yatra continues smoothly. Security concerns cannot be a perpetual excuse," the counsel said.

To this, SG Mehta responded by saying that the region had witnessed significant improvement.

"Jammu and Kashmir has progressed; everyone is happy... 99.9 per cent of the people consider the government of India as their own. These arguments are for some other forum, not this court," he said.

"Delay in the restoration of statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir, causing a grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India," Bhat's plea said.

The assembly elections and the Lok Sabha polls were conducted peacefully in Jammu and Kashmir without any incident of violence, disturbance or any security concerns being reported, it said.

"Therefore, there is no impediment of security concerns, violence or any other disturbances which would hinder or prevent the grant/restoration of the status of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as had been assured by the Union of India in the present proceedings," the plea added.

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)