New Delhi: There are wider concerns to be addressed and resolved in Jammu & Kashmir before statehood is restored, the Centre told the Supreme Court Friday.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made the submission while a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was hearing a batch of petitions seeking direction to the government to restore J&K’s statehood.
The central government is in consultation with the J&K administration… that is the correct approach, Mehta said in court.
“The Jammu & Kashmir region has progressed. Everyone is happy—99.99 per cent of the people there treat the Government of India as their own government. So, all that they (petitioners seeking prompt restoration of statehood) are saying must be taken with a pinch of salt,” he said, also referring to the Pahalgam terror attack that disrupted peace in the region and raised concerns over security. He added there were incidents that he was not disclosing to the court at the moment.
Mehta went on to seek six weeks from the court to submit the Centre’s response to the pleas seeking a timeline for statehood.
The petitioners, pointing out this was the second instance the Centre was asking for more time in the matter, said the government was bound by its undertaking given to a constitution bench of the court that had pronounced its judgement on the 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which provided special status to J&K.
According to the petitioners, the Centre must act upon its promise that was made before the five-judge bench that heard and decided in 2023 a string of petitions challenging the abrogation. These petitions had also questioned the bifurcation of the erstwhile state into two union territories (UT), Jammu & Kashmir with an assembly and Ladakh.
Though the constitution bench had upheld Article 370’s abrogation, it did not decide on the validity of the law that became the legal basis for J&K’s bifurcation into two UTs. This was because the Centre had then submitted that UT status was temporary and statehood would be restored in J&K.
While the J&K assembly elections were held between September and October 2024, the Centre has since remained silent on its redesignation as a state.
This prompted the petitioners to approach the top court last year itself.
During the hearing Friday, CJI Gavai acknowledged the Centre’s concerns and observed: “See, the decision is to be taken after taking all factors… see what happened in Pahalgam.”
Given that the Centre did not provide a specific timeline for restoring statehood, the petitioners then requested the court to consider referring their case to a constitution bench, which was opposed by Mehta.
The hearing also witnessed sharp exchanges between Mehta and one of the petitioners’ counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who appeared for academician Zahoor Ahmed Bhat.
This was after Sankaranarayanan remarked “Pahalgam was under their watch”.
Mehta expressed strong reservation to the word “their”. “Under our government’s watch,” he asserted, raising questions at the petitioner’s credibility. “Who are they”, the solicitor shot back, urging the bench to take note of the objectionable statement.
Sankaranarayanan continued with his statement and said: “Statehood was taken away in 2019 and we are now in 2025. Now, for reasons best known… enough water has flown under the bridge and elections have also been held.”
Mehta interjected to say that “blood” was also lost.
“All five judges noted the solemn undertaking (by the Centre). One judge noted that statehood should be granted immediately after one election. This undertaking was before a constitution bench. We are only seeking that this be enforced within a probable time,” Sankaranarayanan persisted.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for another co-petitioner, Congress lawmaker Irfan Lone, also spoke about the Centre’s assurance, which was an institutional commitment made to the court.
Moreover, she contended, that the larger question in the matter was on the concept of federalism and the ramifications it has had in the case of J&K.
After hearing the parties briefly, the bench accepted the Centre’s plea but gave it four weeks to respond to the petitions.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: SC to build court-annexed arbitration centre & co-working space for young lawyers over 1.5-acre land