Centre Uncertain on Timeline for Jammu & Kashmir’s Statehood Restoration; Ready for Elections
The Central Government, in a recent statement to the Supreme Court, expressed its inability to provide a definitive timeline for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. However, it emphasized that the Union Territory (UT) status of Jammu & Kashmir is merely a temporary measure.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, addressing a Constitution Bench examining petitions challenging Jammu and Kashmir’s special status repeal and its subsequent demotion to a Union Territory, stated,
“I am unable to give an exact time period for complete statehood, while saying UT status is a temporary status.”
This comes after the bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, sought clarity from the Centre on a potential timeline for both statehood restoration and elections in Jammu and Kashmir, emphasizing the importance of
“restoration of democracy.”
Detailing the Centre’s initiatives to stabilize the region, the Solicitor General highlighted that terrorist incidents have decreased by 42.5% since 2019, with infiltration down by 90.20%. Stone-pelting incidents, which once posed significant challenges, have now reduced by 92%. He also noted the decline in casualties among security personnel by 69.5%.
Mehta further elaborated on the Centre’s efforts to boost investments in Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in gainful employment opportunities for the youth, who were previously susceptible to secessionist influences. He stated,
“What affected the elections most were stone-pelting incidents and regular calls for bandhs/hartal. In 2018, the stone pelting was 1761. Now it is NIL.”
However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, contested the Solicitor General’s portrayal of normalcy. He argued that the perceived calm was a result of coercive measures like house arrests and internet shutdowns. Sibal remarked,
“How can there be bandhs when people can’t even go to hospitals?”
In response to the ongoing debate, CJI Chandrachud clarified that the bench would not consider post-2019 situational facts when addressing the Constitutional questions. He stated,
“These are matters where there can be and should be policy deferences but that can’t affect the constitutional arguments.”
During previous hearings, the Supreme Court had urged the Union Government to outline a roadmap for Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood restoration. Emphasizing the balance between national security and democratic restoration, CJI Chandrachud had asserted,
“Equally, restoration of democracy is important.”
The Solicitor General, in response, had assured that while Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be reinstated, Ladakh would remain a UT. He further clarified that, barring police and public order, Jammu and Kashmir retained all other powers.
This ongoing discourse underscores the complexities surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s status and the broader implications for India’s federal structure and democratic principles.
