Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.
Credit: PTI File Photo
Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s recent statement that he is “ready to dissolve the assembly if statehood is restored” has reignited debate over the legal and political contours of reversing the Union Territory (UT) status imposed on the region in August 2019.
As the erstwhile state awaits the long-promised restoration of full statehood, a critical question emerges: Is it constitutionally necessary—or politically advisable—to dissolve the existing UT legislative assembly before J&K is granted statehood again?
The reorganisation of states and UTs in India falls under Article 3 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, or change the status of existing territories. It was under this provision that Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcating the former state into two Union Territories—Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without one).
The Act significantly curtailed the powers of the new J&K assembly, particularly on key subjects such as law and order and policing, which remained with the Union government.
Importantly, the Constitution does not explicitly require the dissolution of a UT’s legislative assembly for its elevation to statehood. Technically, Parliament can pass a new law or amend the 2019 Act to convert the existing UT back into a state with or without dissolving the assembly. However, practical and political considerations strongly argue in favour of fresh elections.
Experts argue that while the legal route allows for continuity, political legitimacy may demand a fresh mandate. “Omar Abdullah’s offer to dissolve the assembly is a political message, not a constitutional requirement,” says Prof Gul Wani, former head of the Political Science department at the University of Kashmir.
“It reflects a willingness to allow people to revalidate their leadership in a changed constitutional context. The current assembly was elected under the limited mandate of a UT. Once statehood is restored, its legislative powers will expand—especially over law and order—warranting a new democratic mandate,” he told Deccan Herald.
Historical precedents support this position. When Goa transitioned from a Union Territory to a state in 1987, its existing legislature continued only briefly before being dissolved to allow fresh elections under the new framework.
A ruling NC MLA agrees. “Dissolution isn’t legally required, but it offers a clean constitutional reset. It also signals administrative readiness and democratic maturity,” he said.
New Delhi has repeatedly assured that statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir “at an appropriate time.” However, no definitive timeline has been laid out. Abdullah’s remarks now place the onus on New Delhi to move beyond assurances.
While dissolution is not a legal necessity, it could be the most effective way to ensure democratic legitimacy, legal clarity, and political reconciliation as Jammu and Kashmir moves toward a new constitutional chapter.