In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has requested the Centre to provide a timeframe for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, as the court continues to hear pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370. This provision's revocation in 2019 led to the bifurcation of the region into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The court also sought a roadmap outlining the progression toward restoring statehood.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, conveyed that the present status of Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory is temporary. He indicated that a positive statement regarding the restoration timeframe would be possible after a high-level meeting scheduled for August 31. He clarified that Ladakh would remain a separate union territory.
The Centre's stance is that the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory is not permanent and that the region's statehood will be reinstated. This assertion aligns with the statement made by the Home Minister that this change is a temporary measure. The Supreme Court seemed to concur with this viewpoint, acknowledging that the Indian Constitution takes precedence over the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
However, the bench expressed skepticism about the argument that the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state, disbanded in 1957, was in essence a legislative assembly. The Centre further highlighted that the special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir were perceived as a privilege rather than discrimination. Notably, certain political parties defended Article 370 and 35A, asserting that these provisions were essential.
Solicitor General Mehta emphasized that there is substantial evidence indicating that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is subservient to the Indian Constitution. The court raised concerns about accepting the argument that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was indeed a legislative assembly. The proviso to Article 370 indicated that the Constituent Assembly brought specific subjects into the state's fold upon approval.
Furthermore, Mehta pointed out that despite the dissolution of the state's legislative assembly in November 2018, there was no challenge to this action. He underlined that arguments questioning its dissolution were made by petitioners, despite no challenges being presented. Additionally, he mentioned that a challenge to the imposition of Governor's rule in June 2018 was made only after 14 months, despite the provision's implementation.
As the hearings continue, the court's efforts to seek clarity on the restoration timeline for Jammu and Kashmir's statehood indicate the ongoing importance of addressing the complex and sensitive issues surrounding Article 370 and the region's administrative status.
