'Ground realities can’t be ignored’: SC questions centre on J&K statehood 21 months after Article 370

Hearing a plea that accuses the Union government of backtracking on its assurance to restore Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, the Supreme Court sought a formal reply, citing recent developments in the region.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, saying ground realities, including the recent Pahalgam incident cannot be ignored.

"You also have to take into consideration the ground realities… you cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam," CJI B R Gavai said when counsel including senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought an early hearing.

The bench also comprised Justice K Vinod Chandran.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, sought dismissal of the plea and said in the past too, the court had imposed costs on such pleas.

"Elections are held, my lords are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of the country and there are several considerations which go into decision-making," Mehta said.

The bench posted the plea, filed by academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and socio-political activist Ahmad Malik, for hearing after eight weeks.

Sankarnarayanan, appearing for Bhat, said it had been 21 months since that judgment was passed by the Constitution bench on issues including the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.

“There has been no movement partly because, my lords fairly trusted the Union when they made this statement before the court that they will implement the statehood," Sankarnarayanan said.

Referring to the judgment, he said the bench did not address the issue in view of the assurance given by the solicitor general that the statehood to Jammu and kashmir will be restored.

Sankaranarayanan said the bench had merely directed that restoration of statehood at the earliest and did not set any timeline.

On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370, which accorded a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, even as it ordered that assembly elections be held in the union territory by September 2024 and its statehood be restored "at the earliest".

Last year, a plea was filed in the top court seeking directions to the Centre for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within two months.

"Delay in the restoration of statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir, causing a grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India," Bhat's plea said.

The assembly elections and the Lok Sabha polls were conducted peacefully in Jammu and Kashmir without any incident of violence, disturbance or any security concerns being reported, it said.

"Therefore, there is no impediment of security concerns, violence or any other disturbances which would hinder or prevent the grant/restoration of the status of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as had been assured by the Union of India in the present proceedings," the plea added.

The non-restoration of the status of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, the plea said, would result in a lesser form of elected democratic government to the state, particularly given legislative assembly results were declared on October 8, 2024.

Despite the apex court's directions for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir "at the earliest and as soon as possible", the Centre took no steps to provide any timeline for the implementation of such directions, it claimed.

"Jammu and Kashmir is being operated as a Union Territory for a period of almost five years now, which has caused many impediments and grave losses to the development of Jammu and Kashmir and has affected the democratic rights of its citizens," the plea added.

In its December 2023 verdict, the apex court held that Article 370, which was incorporated in the Indian Constitution in 1949 to grant special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was a temporary provision.

President of India was empowered to revoke the measure in the absence of the constituent assembly of the erstwhile state whose term expired in 1957, the court said.