The Supreme Court Today (Aug 25) said that the Jammu and Kashmir statehood case will be heard on October 10. The request for an urgent hearing was declined by CJI Gavai-led bench.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that the important matter related to the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir will now be taken up on October 10, 2025.
The court refused to grant an urgent hearing on the plea that was connected with the abrogation of Article 370 and the demand for early restoration of statehood.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing in the matter requested the court for a faster listing.
The lawyer said,
“I am seeking Early listing of a contempt petition relating to abrogation of article 370. Statehood was to be granted to Jammu and Kashmir.”
However, Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, responded and made the court’s stand clear.
CJI said,
“It is listed already. 10th October.”
The lawyer again pressed for an earlier hearing and repeated his request for quick listing.
The counsel submitted,
“early listing…”
To this, Justice Gavai firmly replied:
“We are in the midst of a constitutional bench (referring to the presidential reference). 10th October.”
This matter directly deals with the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. The region lost its special status after the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, when it was downgraded from a full-fledged state to a Union Territory.
The issue has been pending before the Supreme Court for some time, and the next hearing on October 10
Last Hearing | “You Can’t Ignore What Happened In Pahalgam”: Top Court Adjourns Plea for 8 Weeks
The Supreme Court on Aug 14 made an important remark while hearing a plea to restore Statehood for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
The Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed concern about the current situation in the Union Territory, pointing to the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam.
“You can’t ignore what happened in Pahalgam,”
-the Court told Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was representing the petitioners.
The Central government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposed the plea. Mehta reminded the Court that the government had already promised to give Statehood back to J&K after elections were held.
“We assured statehood after elections. There is a peculiar position of this part of our country. I don’t know why this issue is agitated now. This particular State is not the correct State to muddy the water. I will still seek instructions. 8 weeks may be given,”
-the Solicitor General said.
Sankaranarayanan argued that in 2023, when the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, the judges had accepted the Centre’s word that Statehood would be restored. Because of that assurance, the Court had chosen not to decide the Statehood question at that time.
“The judgment had trusted the government to grant Statehood. Restoration of Statehood was to be done after elections (in J&K). It has been 21 months since that judgment…,”
-he told the Court.
The Bench eventually decided to postpone the matter for eight weeks so that the Solicitor General could take instructions from the government.
The petition was filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, a college teacher, and Khurshid Ahmad Malik, an activist. They argued that delaying Statehood was affecting the rights of the people in the region.
Jammu and Kashmir was split into two Union Territories — J&K and Ladakh — in 2019 after the removal of Article 370, which had earlier given special status to the state. The petitioners believe that holding Assembly elections before granting Statehood goes against the federal structure of the Constitution. This plea was filed during the Assembly elections held in the region last year.
Currently, the Union Territory has a National Conference-led government, supported by the Congress party and independent MLAs.
In May 2024, the Supreme Court had rejected review petitions against its December 2023 judgment upholding the scrapping of Article 370. In that 2023 verdict, the Constitution Bench had not ruled on the validity of the 2019 law that split J&K into two Union Territories.
Back then, the Court had recorded the statement of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who had assured that the Union Territory status of J&K was temporary and that Statehood would be restored to the region.
READ LIVE COVERAGE:
Aug 5 Hearing In Top Court
The Supreme Court of India on Aug 5 said it will hear a fresh application on August 8, 2025 (which was not taken up), asking the Central Government to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir within a fixed time frame.
This plea has been submitted as part of the writ petition titled “In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution”, which was earlier decided by the Supreme Court in December 2023, when the Court had upheld the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution.
The new application was mentioned before the bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who requested that the matter not be removed from the case list. The CJI accepted this request, and the hearing was scheduled for August 8.
Earlier, while upholding the removal of Article 370, the Court had clearly ordered,
“Restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible.”
This earlier observation was made on the basis of a statement by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who had told the Court that the Centre intends to restore Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood (except for the carved-out Union Territory of Ladakh).
Because of this assurance, the Supreme Court had then decided it was not necessary to rule on whether dividing the former state into two Union Territories was valid under Article 3 of the Constitution.
Now, the new application has pointed out that despite the Court’s direction, 10 months have passed since the December 11, 2023 judgment, but Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood has not been restored.
This delay, the application argues, is seriously affecting the rights of citizens in the region and violates the principle of federalism.
The plea clearly states:
“Even after passing of 10 months of the order dated 11.12.2023, till date the status of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been restored which is gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism”.
It also draws the Court’s attention to the recent Legislative Assembly elections held in Jammu and Kashmir after a gap of ten years, conducted in three phases to elect 90 members.
The plea warns that announcing the results on October 8, 2024, and forming a government before restoring full statehood would undermine democracy in the region.
The application explains:
“The results of the said elections are to be pronounced on 08.10.2024. It is submitted that the formation of the Legislative Assembly before the restoration of Statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir causing grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India….”
The plea was filed by Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, one of the original petitioners in the Article 370 case. It asserts that failure to restore Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood promptly goes against the basic structure of the Constitution, especially the federal principle.
It further adds:
“Jammu and Kashmir being an individual state having gone through many struggles and hardships require a strong federal structure to help in developing the area and also celebrating its unique culture”.
The 2023 Supreme Court judgment had marked a turning point in the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir. The top court had ruled that Article 370 was a temporary provision meant for transitional purposes due to war-like conditions when it was introduced.
The 476-page verdict by the five-judge Constitution Bench also upheld the validity of carving out Ladakh as a separate Union Territory under Article 3(a) and Explanation I, which allows such reorganisation.
In this regard, the Constitution Bench noted:
“This Court is alive to the security concerns in the territory. Direct elections to the Legislative Assemblies which is one of the paramount features of representative democracy in India cannot be put on hold until statehood is restored”.
Interestingly, the Court left open the question of whether Parliament can permanently remove the statehood of a state by converting it into one or more Union Territories under Article 3.
The Court said that it may examine this issue in a suitable future case, considering the historical context and its impact on federalism and democracy.
The bench observed:
“This Court… would construe the scope of powers under Article 3 in light of the historical context for the creation of federating units, and its impact on the principles of federalism and representative democracy.”
In a significant move, the Supreme Court had also recommended a commission to study and report on human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir since the 1980s.
Case Title:
IN RE ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF (APPLICATION): ZAHOOR AHMAD BHAT AND ANR. vs. UNION OF INDIA
MA 2259/2024 And Connected Matter.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Jammu and Kashmir’s Statehood
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
