Today, On 10th October, In the Jammu & Kashmir Statehood case, Supreme Court says, “While elections to the J&K Assembly were held peacefully and an elected government is in place, certain incidents like the Pahalgam Attack must be considered before a final decision.”
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.
Attorney General (SG) of India stated,
“This is a broader, generic issue with wider concerns. Of course, there was a solemn undertaking.”
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) emphasized,
“Any decision must consider all factors look at what happened in Pahalgam.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan highlighted,
“There was a solemn undertaking. Pahalgam was under their watch.”
The SG responded,
“I take objection under our government’s watch. Who are ‘they’? The Supreme Court must rule on this.”
Reading out the judgment, Senior Advocate Gopal said,
“Statehood was revoked in 2019, and now in 2025, ‘enough water has flown under the bridge’ and elections have already taken place. All five judges noted the solemn undertaking. One judge specified that statehood should be restored immediately after an election. This was before a Constitution Bench, and we are only seeking enforcement within a reasonable timeframe.”
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Irfan Lone, said,
“Assurance was given but not acted upon. This sets a dangerous precedent. The Constitution does not envisage converting a State into a UT. It raises serious concerns for secularism.”
Senior Advocate P.C. Sen added,
“We were petitioners in the original case. The undertaking meant they should at least attempt to introduce a statehood bill in Parliament. Suicide deaths have increased, as noted by Justice Anjana Prakash.”
Also Read: BREAKING | Toxic Cough Syrup: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Probe into Child Deaths
The SG countered,
“Oh, these are the ones pushing an agenda to show a grim picture.”
The CJI reminded,
“Please do not interrupt you need not get agitated.”
Senior Advocate N.K. Bhardwaj said,
“People of Jammu expect the statement to be honored. Five years have passed with little development. In Anantnag, there is concern in Jammu, the region is peaceful and yatra continues. The Court should ask SG how long it will take to restore their rights.”
Advocate Gopal insisted,
“Propriety demands that a five judge bench hear this and fix a timeframe.”
The CJI asked,
“You want a five judge reference?”
The SG replied,
“No, I don’t I will file a reply here.”
Advocate Gopal explained,
“In Constitution Bench matters, clarifications are typically placed before the same quorum.”
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy added,
“The J&K Cabinet passed a resolution a year ago urging the Centre to consider restoring statehood.”
The SG responded,
“The Central Government is consulting the State Government that is the proper approach. Jammu and Kashmir has progressed, and 99.99% of people consider the Government of India as their own. So, the claims made by petitioners should be taken with a pinch of salt.”
The Supreme Court order noted,
“While elections to the J&K Assembly were held peacefully and an elected government is in place, substantial progress has occurred, certain incidents like the Pahalgam Attack must be considered before a final decision, and the Centre and State are still in consultation.”
The matter is now scheduled for hearing in four weeks.
Earlier, On 25 August, the top court refused to give an urgent or earlier hearing in the matter, which is directly connected with the abrogation of Article 370 and the demand to bring back full statehood to the region.
This case is important as it deals directly with the question of restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, which was lost after Article 370 was abrogated in August 2019.
The special status of the region was removed, and Jammu and Kashmir was downgraded from a full-fledged state into a Union Territory along with Ladakh.
Case Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD BHAT AND ANR. V UNION OF INDIA, MA 2259/2024
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
