Five prominent petitioners have written to CJI B.R. Gavai demanding a Supreme Court bench and early deadline to restore Jammu & Kashmir’s statehood. They warn delaying it undermines federalism and violates constitutional principles.
New Delhi: In a strongly worded open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), B.R. Gavai, five notable citizens and petitioners in the Article 370 case have raised serious concerns over the Union Government’s delay in restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) statehood, which was revoked in August 2019.
Despite repeated promises by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, they said, the statehood of J&K has not yet been restored, and the delay raises significant constitutional and legal concerns.
The petitioners include former Union Home Secretary Gopal Pillai, retired Major-General Ashok K. Mehta, retired Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak, former Jammu & Kashmir interlocutor Radha Kumar, and former Union Secretary of the Inter-State Council, Amitabha Pande.
The group urged CJI Gavai to constitute a special bench of the Supreme Court to hear petitions related to the constitutionality of the removal of J&K’s statehood, and also asked for a definite timeline for its restoration.
They also demanded that the Supreme Court lay down legal safeguards to ensure no future government can similarly abrogate an existing state’s status.
Referring to the assurance made by the Solicitor General before the Supreme Court during the hearings in the Article 370 matter, they highlighted that the apex court refrained from giving a ruling on whether the conversion of a full-fledged state into two Union Territories was constitutional or not, only because the
“Solicitor-General had assured it that statehood would be restored at an appropriate time.”
The petitioners emphasized that the Union administration’s repeated promises in Parliament and before the court suggest
“a tacit recognition that the removal of statehood is unconstitutional.”
They took strong objection to the Solicitor General’s statement before the Supreme Court bench in December 2023, where he stated that statehood would be restored “in stages”, saying that this statement nullifies the constitutional principle that
“no state can be demoted to a union territory in its entirety.”
They further warned that such a policy sets a dangerous precedent where any state could potentially be downgraded by the Centre, thus violating the core principles of Indian federalism.
Reacting to the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, the petitioners noted that the government may use the incident as a pretext to again delay the restoration of statehood.
However, they clearly argued that
“not only is that argument (Pahalgam) not tenable, it can be argued that this is exactly the time to do so.”
They pointed out that
“the high turnout in the October 2024 elections with no violence, and the absolute majority the electors gave the National Conference…indicated the people had voted for an elected administration with the strength to govern according to public aspirations.”
Acknowledging the peaceful and democratic response of the people of J&K to the Pahalgam attack, they noted:
“the NIA investigations have now found out that the earlier police version that Kashmiris were involved in the terror attack is ‘unfounded.’”
In a veiled criticism of the J&K administration under Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, the petitioners remarked:
“the LG Manoj Sinha administration’s haste in unjustified punitive action has caused a great deal of anger on the ground and this has been exacerbated by the sidelining of the elected administration and assembly from security consultations and initiatives for redress.”
They expressed their concern that
“the post-Pahalgam environment, which was widely conducive to the re-establishment of peace, is already being vitiated.”
They asserted that
“the most effective bulwark against such vitiation is restoration of civil and political rights, including oversight institutions, that will come with statehood.”
The letter also highlighted that the elected Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had passed a resolution in favour of restoring statehood and that eight months have passed since Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha forwarded the resolution to the President, but
“no action has been taken, despite repeated requests by the Chief Minister.”
The group reiterated:
“the government’s repeated assurances on restoring statehood suggest a tacit recognition that the removal of statehood is unconstitutional.”
They strongly rejected the Solicitor General’s plan of phased restoration, arguing:
“this is a policy that nullifies the constitutional issue that no state can be demoted to a Union Territory in its entirety. If that demotion was unconstitutional then it follows that statehood must be restored in toto.”
Issuing a warning, they added that this policy
“puts all states at the risk of similar actions being taken against them following the Solicitor General’s laid out plan.”
Stressing the historical significance of the issue, the petitioners said:
“it was the first time in independent India that an existing state had been demoted to Union Territory.”
They maintained that such an action violated the Constitution and the basic structure doctrine, which defines India as a federal democracy where states’ rights are protected.
They recalled that the Supreme Court had refrained from ruling on the legality of this move, solely based on the Centre’s promise of timely restoration.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Compromise, Affirms Advocacy for Animal Rights
The letter reminded the CJI that
“Then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud urged the government to restore statehood at the earliest,” and that “Justice Sanjay Khanna separately had held it unconstitutional.”
In conclusion, the petitioners urged the Chief Justice to take suo motu cognizance of their open letter, set up a bench to decide the legality of the removal of statehood, and push for its swift and complete restoration.
Read Letter:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Domestic Violence
