SG Tushar Mehta today told the Court that the Central government is in touch with the elected government of J&K, and that wider concerns have to be factored in before a final decision can be taken.
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Central government to respond to a petition seeking a timeline within which statehood may be restored to Jammu and Kashmir, which was divided into two Union Territories in 2019 [Zahoor Ahmad Bhat And Anr. Versus Union Of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran asked Central government to file its response within six weeks.
“Learned SG states that elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly were held in a peaceful manner and an elected government was put in place. It is stated that there has been substantial progress in Jammu and Kashmir, but certain incidents, including the Pahalgam attack, have taken place and all will have to be taken into consideration before a final call (is taken on the restoration of statehood). It is stated that the Centre and State are in consultation. Learned SG seeks more time to respond. We grant 6 weeks time to respond to the submissions made by the petitioners,” the Court’s order said.
The interim order was passed in a batch of petitions seeking the restoration of statehood for Jammu and Kashmir.
Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.
The decision to abrogate Article 370 was later upheld by the top court. However, the Constitution Bench of the Court refused to decide on the validity of a 2019 law that paved the way for the bifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir into Union Territories.
At the time, the Court felt it was unnecessary to decide on the validity of the 2019 law, since Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta assured that J&K’s status as a Union Territory is temporary and that statehood will be restored to the region.
During today’s hearing of the matter, SG Mehta told the Court that there were wider concerns at play which have to be resolved before statehood can be restored for Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court acknowledged this aspect of the matter, while also referring to the recent Pahalgam terror attack, which took place in April and led to the death of 26 civilians.
“See, the decision is to be taken after taking all factors.. see what happened in Pahalgam,” CJI Gavai observed.
The SG eventually also assured the Court that the Central government is in touch with J&K’s election government on how to take things forward. He also urged the Court to take any submissions made about unrest among the people of Jammu and Kashmir at face value.
“Central government is in consultation with the State government … That is the correct approach. The Jammu and Kashmir region has progressed. Everyone is happy. 99.99 per cent of the people there and treat the Government of India as their own government. So all that they (petitioners seeking the prompt restoration of statehood) are saying must be taken with a pinch of salt,” the SG said.
The petitioners, meanwhile, urged the Court to consider that the Central government itself had given a solemn undertaking to a Constitutional Bench of the Court that statehood would be restored for Jammu and Kashmir.
“There was a solemn undertaking … Pahalgam was under their watch,” said Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for a petitioner.
SG Mehta took sharp objection to this line of argument.
“I take objection. Under our government’s watch. Who are they? Supreme Court must rule on this!” the SG said.
The petitioners added that all they required was for this promise to be fulfilled within a reasonable time period.
“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,” Sankaranarayanan said.
“Blood and water also,” retorted the SG.
“All 5 judges noted the solemn undertaking. 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.
Appearing for Congress lawmaker (a petitioner), Irfan Lone, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy added,
“An assurance was given and nothing was done. This is a bad precedent when it comes to the Constitution … the Articles (of the Constitution) cited do not envisage such conversion from State to Union Territory. Larger question is the ramifications on the concept of secularism.”
Senior Advocate PC Sen, appearing for another petitioner added that the Central government should, at the very least, attempt to introduce a Bill to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir so that there is some discussion on the issue in Parliament.
He added,
“We have seen suicide deaths have gone up … These reports are by Justice Anjana Prakash…”
“Oh, ok, these are the ones who are painting an agenda.. They want to show a grim picture,” SG Mehta interjected.
“Please do not interrupt like this. You need not get agitated,” the CJI told the SG, in turn.
Senior Advocate NK Bhardwaj (for a petitioner) went on to argue that the people of Jammu and Kashmir were expecting at least a statement from the government that statehood would be restored.
“5 years have passed now. People in Jammu.. there are no developmental works. When people go to meet them, they say that they do not have funds. See Anantnag incident …. Everyone is concerned. But Jammu is peaceful.. Maata Vaishno Devi yatra is happening.. This court must ask SG. how long will they take to give us our right?” he contended.
“Propriety demands that 5 judges hear this and a time frame be fixed,” Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan added.
The SG, however, opposed any such reference to a five-judge Bench of the Court.
