The Supreme Court has fixed October 10, 2025, to hear applications demanding restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood after the abrogation of Article 370. Petitioners argue the Centre failed to honour its assurance despite Assembly elections and repeated Court directions.
The Supreme Court of India has fixed October 10, 2025, as the date to hear important applications that demand the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
Background
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.
During the brief hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioners requested the Court to list the matter at the earliest.
The lawyer submitted,
“I am seeking Early listing of a contempt petition relating to abrogation of article 370. Statehood was to be granted to Jammu and Kashmir.”
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, however, made the Court’s position very clear and said,
“It is listed already. 10th October.”
Even after this, the lawyer again pressed for an earlier hearing, repeating the request for a quicker listing. The counsel again said,
“early listing…”
But Justice Gavai firmly turned down the request and replied,
“We are in the midst of a constitutional bench (referring to the presidential reference). 10th October.”
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.
The matter has been pending before the Supreme Court for a long time. On August 14, while hearing one of the pleas, the Court had also made an important remark.
The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed concern about the law-and-order situation in the region by referring to a recent terrorist attack. The Court observed,
“You can’t ignore what happened in Pahalgam,”
and this was said while addressing Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appearing for the petitioners.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposed the plea and reminded the Court that the government had already promised to restore statehood after elections. Mehta told the Bench,
“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.”
Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan, however, argued that when the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370 in December 2023, the Centre had given an assurance that statehood would be restored.
He said that the judges at that time did not decide on the issue of statehood only because they trusted the word of the government. He argued before the Court,
“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…”
After hearing both sides, the Bench postponed the matter for eight weeks to allow the Solicitor General to take instructions from the Central Government.
The petition seeking restoration of statehood was filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, a college teacher, and activist Khurshid Ahmad Malik. They argued that continued delay in granting statehood was seriously affecting the rights of the people of the region.
It is important to recall that after Article 370 was removed in August 2019, Jammu and Kashmir was split into two Union Territories — Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh. The petitioners believe that holding Assembly elections in the Union Territory without restoring statehood weakens India’s federal structure.
At present, Jammu and Kashmir has a National Conference-led government supported by the Congress party and independent MLAs.
Earlier, in May 2024, the Supreme Court had dismissed review petitions against its December 2023 verdict upholding the scrapping of Article 370.
In that landmark judgment, the Court had not ruled on whether Parliament’s decision to downgrade J&K into two Union Territories was valid under Article 3 of the Constitution.
Instead, the Court recorded the assurance given by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Union Territory status of Jammu and Kashmir was only temporary and that statehood would be restored.
The Court had clearly recorded in its order,
“Restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible.”
Because of this assurance, the Constitution Bench had not gone into the constitutional validity of dividing the state into two Union Territories.
Later, in August 2025, a fresh application was mentioned before CJI B.R. Gavai by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, asking the Court to ensure that statehood was restored within a fixed time frame.
The CJI agreed not to remove the matter from the case list and scheduled it for August 8, 2025. However, the application could not be taken up on that day.
The plea pointed out that even ten months after the Supreme Court’s December 2023 judgment, the government had not restored statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. It stated,
“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”.
The application also noted that Assembly elections were conducted in J&K after a decade. These elections, held in three phases, elected 90 members, and results were announced on October 8, 2024.
The petitioners argued that forming a government before restoring statehood would be against the spirit of democracy and federalism.
The plea warned,
“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 petitioner, Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, who was also among those who had challenged the abrogation of Article 370, argued in the plea that denying statehood went against India’s federal principles. The plea said,
“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”.
In its December 2023 judgment, the Supreme Court had ruled that Article 370 was a temporary provision, introduced in the Constitution for transitional purposes because of war-like conditions at that time.
The detailed 476-page judgment had also upheld the separation of Ladakh as a Union Territory, relying on Article 3(a) and Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits such reorganisation of states.
The Constitution Bench, however, left open the larger question of whether Parliament can permanently take away the statehood of a state by converting it into one or more Union Territories under Article 3.
The Court 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.”
The Bench also recommended the formation of a commission to study 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 matters.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI B.R. Gavai
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
