On Wednesday (August 14), the Supreme Court, while hearing a plea seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir, stressed that “ground realities” in the region must be considered, citing the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack as an example.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an application filed by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan. The plea urges the Union Government to act on its assurance given during the Article 370 proceedings that Jammu & Kashmir’s statehood would be restored.

‘21 Months Have Passed Since Article 370 Judgment’
Sankarnarayanan pointed out that it has been nearly 21 months since the Supreme Court’s judgment in the In Re: Article 370 case, yet there has been no concrete movement on statehood restoration. He reminded the court that the Solicitor General had, during those proceedings, assured that statehood would be reinstated. The court, while upholding the abrogation of Article 370, had refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019—solely on the basis of the Union’s assurance.

The December 2023 judgment directed the Election Commission to conduct Assembly elections by 30 September 2024 and stated that “restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible” but without specifying any fixed timeline.

Other Voices in Support
Counsel for the former Chief Secretary of J&K also supported the plea and indicated they would be filing a similar petition. Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for applicant Irfan Lone, who has also sought restoration.

Union Government’s Objection
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, opposed the plea, arguing that it was not maintainable. He reminded the bench that similar petitions in the past had been dismissed with costs. He also stressed that decision-making in Jammu & Kashmir involves “peculiar considerations” tied to security and the region’s special circumstances.

When another counsel intervened to stress the importance of implementing the Union’s earlier assurance, the CJI responded:

“You also have to take into consideration the ground realities; you cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam.”

Why Petitioners Say Statehood Must Be Restored Now
The applicants — Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik — argue that the delay in restoring statehood violates the federal structure, which forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure. They highlight that peaceful Assembly elections have already been conducted, which shows there is no security impediment.

Their plea contends that continued status as a Union Territory is unconstitutional in light of the Union’s assurance and that there is no justification for further delay, especially when normalcy has been demonstrated through electoral participation.

Next Steps
The petitioners have urged the court to form a dedicated bench to hear all related matters together. The Supreme Court has now listed the case after eight weeks, directing the Union Government to file its response immediately thereafter.

Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat & Anr. v. Union of India (MA 2259/2024 and connected matters)
Filed By: Advocate-on-Record Soayib Qureshi