Jammu & Kashmir statehood issue reached the Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated, “99.9% of J&K’s people see India as its own Govt.” The Court is now examining the implications for restoring full statehood.
The Supreme Court of India heard critical pleas regarding the restoration of Jammu & Kashmir’s statehood .
Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran heard the matter.
During today’s hearing regarding the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a bench led by Chief Justice Gavai,
“99.9% of the population of Jammu and Kashmir treat the government of India as their own government.”
This remark was made in response to Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who pointed out recent security lapses under the current administration.
Sankaranarayanan’s reference to “their government” prompted Mehta to emphasize the Union’s position that the people of Jammu and Kashmir align with the Government of India.
Mehta continued, stating,
“The population of J&K is happy. These problems projected before court are not the gospel truth… please take it with a pinch of salt… 99.9% of the population of Jammu and Kashmir treat the government of India as their own government… please have after 4 weeks.”
He also addressed concerns raised by petitioners regarding a rising suicide rate in the region, cautioning that portraying such issues could create a grim global image.
Senior Counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the Supreme Court to restore full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, reminding the bench that a solemn statement was made previously and requesting enforcement of that undertaking within a reasonable timeframe.
The Supreme Court granted the Union government four weeks to respond to pleas seeking appropriate directions for the timely restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir.
This application is part of a protracted dispute following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, when the Indian government revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and divided it into two union territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
Also Read: BREAKING | Toxic Cough Syrup: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Probe into Child Deaths
Earlier, In August, while considering the application, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ground realities, with Chief Justice Gavai noting,
“You cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam… ground realities have to be considered.”
Notably, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had previously argued that the application was not maintainable, stating,
“This MA is not maintainable… we ensured elections were held… peculiar considerations emerge from this part of the country… don’t know why this issue is emerging right now.”
An application has been filed in the writ petition titled “In re: Article 370 of the Constitution,” which was decided by the Supreme Court in December 2023, upholding the decision to abrogate Article 370.
While affirming the abrogation, the court ordered,
“Restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible.”
The court relied on Mehta’s statement that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be restored, excluding the Union Territory of Ladakh. Given this statement, the court did not find it necessary to determine the permissibility of reorganizing Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories under Article 3.
The application asserts that despite the passage of ten months since the December 2023 order, statehood for Jammu and Kashmir has yet to be restored, significantly impacting the rights of its citizens and undermining the principles of federalism.
The court was further informed of the urgency surrounding this issue, as Jammu and Kashmir is set to conduct Legislative elections in three phases to elect 90 members of the Legislative Assembly after a decade, with results expected on October 8, 2024.
The petitioners warned that forming the Legislative Assembly before restoring statehood would severely diminish democratic representation in Jammu and Kashmir, violating the foundational concept of federalism embedded in the Constitution of India.
Filed by Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, one of the original petitioners, the application argues that the delay in restoring statehood violates the principles of federalism, which are integral to the Constitution. It calls for a robust federal structure to aid in the region’s development and celebrate its unique culture.
In a landmark ruling in 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a temporary provision intended to address transitional conditions in Jammu and Kashmir. The 476-page judgment also validated the decision to create the Union Territory of Ladakh under Article 3(a) and its accompanying explanation, which allows for the formation of a Union Territory through the separation of territory from a state.
The court acknowledged the security concerns in the region and affirmed that direct elections to the Legislative Assemblies an essential feature of representative democracy cannot be delayed until statehood is restored.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories under Article 3, indicating it would examine the scope of powers under Article 3 in light of historical contexts and their implications for federalism and representative democracy.
Case Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD BHAT AND ANR. V UNION OF INDIA, MA 2259/2024
Read Attachment