“There is an MA (Miscellaneous Application) for conferring statehood (on Jammu and Kashmir). It was noted (in the judgement on Article 370) that it has to be time-bound,” advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, seeking an urgent hearing.
“I will deal with it,” the CJI told Sankaranarayanan, who represented applicants Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik
Contending that assembly election results in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be meaningless without restoration of statehood; the applicants moved the top court earlier this month seeking restoration of its statehood in two months.
Referring to the assembly polls in Jammu and Kashmir, Bhat and Malik submitted the formation of the legislative assembly before the restoration of statehood would violate the idea of federalism—a part of basic structure of the Constitution.
Since the recently concluded assembly elections were conducted peacefully, there would be no security concerns in case the top court passed a direction to restore statehood to the Union Territory within a time-bound period, it submitted.
“The delay in restoration of statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir causing grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India,” they contended.
In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court on December 11, 2023, upheld the Centre’s decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution that gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and said “restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest”.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud had unanimously directed the Election Commission to hold elections in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024, without waiting for restoration of statehood.
While upholding creation of Ladakh as a separate union territory in view of security reasons, the top court had left open the legal question as to whether Parliament can completely convert a state into a union territory as opposed to carving out a union territory from a state in view of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s statement that the Centre would restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
The BJP-led Government at the Centre has already said it would restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
Now, Bhat – a college teacher—and activist Malik have contended in an application filed in the top court that despite the assurance given by the Solicitor General that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood will be restored, the Union has not taken any steps in that regard in the last ten months since the Constitution Bench verdict.
“The applicants, being the conscious citizens of Jammu and Kashmir are aggrieved that, even after passing of 10 months of the order dated August 11, 2023, till date no steps have been taken to restore the status of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir as a state which is gravely affecting the rights of the inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the basic structure of federalism; and it is for that reason that the applicants have preferred the present application to seek appropriate directions to the Union of India for restoration of the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner within a period of two months,” the application said.
If directions to restore the status of the Statehood of Jammu and Kashmir were not passed at the earliest by the top court it would lead to grave harm being caused to the federal structure of the country, they submitted.
