Omar Abdullah Plans to Join Supreme Court Case for J&K Statehood Restoration, Contradicts Central Government Claims

The Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister indicated his intention to potentially join the ongoing statehood case in the Supreme Court.

Srinagar:

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of Jammu and Kashmir is contemplating becoming a party to the statehood petition currently before the Supreme Court. Mr. Abdullah has also disputed the central government's assertion to the Supreme Court that consultations regarding statehood restoration are taking place with the J&K government.

"We are actively discussing this possibility with our legal team, and I may well make myself a party to this case in my capacity as Chief Minister," Abdullah stated.

Having completed his first year in office without progress on statehood restoration, Abdullah placed responsibility on the central government for failing to fulfill promises made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

He explicitly denied any ongoing consultation with the central government regarding statehood, contradicting claims made by central authorities during a Supreme Court hearing on J&K's statehood restoration.

On October 10, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the central government was consulting with the J&K administration about restoring statehood.

"No. I first learned about this when it was mentioned in the Supreme Court," Abdullah responded when questioned about the Solicitor General's court statement.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a petition requesting prompt restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and has granted the central government four weeks to respond to this plea.

The Chief Minister has now revealed his consideration of becoming involved in the legal proceedings.

"I've consulted senior legal experts about joining this case as Jammu and Kashmir's Chief Minister because I believe no one understands the disadvantages of Union Territory status better than I do. I have the unique experience of serving as Chief Minister under both state and union territory frameworks."

Last week, an interim order was issued by a bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai following statements from the Solicitor General. The government's top legal representative also suggested to the court that incidents such as the Pahalgam terrorist attack should factor into decisions about J&K's statehood restoration.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, countered that the Pahalgam attack occurred "under the central government's watch."

The petitioners reminded the central government of its December 2023 commitment to the court regarding statehood restoration. "What recourse exists when such commitments remain unfulfilled?" a petitioner questioned.

Highlighting India's federal structure, a senior advocate warned that allowing the central government to convert a state into a union territory creates a dangerous precedent. "This could potentially happen to any state—Uttar Pradesh might be converted due to its Nepal border, or Tamil Nadu could face a similar fate," the advocate cautioned.

The petitioners are requesting immediate statehood restoration and implementation of directives issued by a Constitutional bench in December 2023.

On December 11, 2023, a Supreme Court Constitutional Bench upheld Article 370's abrogation but directed the central government to restore statehood "at the earliest possible opportunity." The government had also informed the court that "J&K's union territory status is temporary and statehood will be restored."

Based on the central government's assurance, the court declined to determine whether converting a state to a union territory was constitutionally permissible under Article 3.

"Given the Solicitor General's submission that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir, we find it unnecessary to determine whether reorganizing the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories—Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir—is permissible under Article 3," stated the five-judge bench.

The current petition before the Supreme Court characterizes the statehood restoration delay as violating India's federal structure. "Failing to restore Jammu and Kashmir's statehood in a timely manner undermines federalism, which constitutes part of the Indian Constitution's basic structure," the petitioners argued.

Jammu and Kashmir lost both its statehood and special status under Article 370 in August 2019. Since then, the central government has repeatedly assured residents that statehood would be restored "at an appropriate time."