Fulfil the promise: On restoring Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir
Jammu and Kashmir has continued to function as a Union Territory with a legislature since the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 took effect on 31 October 2019, bifurcating the former state into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
The Supreme Court, in its December 2023 judgment upholding the abrogation of Article 370, directed that statehood be restored to Jammu and Kashmir "at the earliest and as soon as possible," while separately directing Assembly elections be conducted by 30 September 2024
Assembly elections were subsequently held in Jammu and Kashmir, restoring an elected legislature within the existing Union Territory framework, but full statehood — including restoration of a Legislative Council-eligible State status under Part VI of the Constitution — has not yet been notified
No statutory timeline binds the restoration of statehood; the process requires a fresh parliamentary enactment under Article 3
Article 370 and Its Abrogation (2019)
Article 370, a "temporary provision" under Part XXI of the Constitution, granted Jammu and Kashmir a special constitutional status, restricting Parliament's legislative competence over the state (except defence, foreign affairs, and communications) without the concurrence of the state government. On 5-6 August 2019, Presidential Orders under Article 370(1) extended all provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and rendered Article 370 substantially inoperative, ending the special status.
Key Details
- Article 370 was inserted via the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order and had operated since 1954 alongside Article 35A (since struck down along with 370)
- The Supreme Court, in In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023 INSC 1058 / 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1647), decided 11 December 2023 by a five-judge bench led by then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, unanimously upheld the constitutional validity of the abrogation
- The Court held Article 370 was always a temporary provision intended to facilitate the state's full integration, and that the President's power under Article 370(1)(d) did not require the state legislature's concurrence once the state was under President's Rule
The restoration debate begins from this 2023 judgment, which validated the abrogation but simultaneously imposed a judicial expectation — not a binding deadline — that statehood be restored.
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 — Bifurcation into Two Union Territories
The Act, passed by Parliament in August 2019 under its power to reorganise states, split the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories effective 31 October 2019: Jammu and Kashmir (a UT with its own legislature) and Ladakh (a UT without a legislature, administered directly by the Centre through a Lieutenant Governor).
Key Details
- The Act applies Article 239A of the Constitution — originally framed for Puducherry — to the Jammu and Kashmir UT, providing for an elected Legislative Assembly (107-114 seats) with law-making power over all State List subjects except "Public Order" and "Police," which remain with the Union
- Ladakh (comprising Leh and Kargil districts) was constituted as a UT without a legislature, governed like Chandigarh or Andaman & Nicobar Islands under Article 239
- The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment declined to rule on the permanence of Ladakh's UT status, treating it as a separate constitutional question from the Article 370 abrogation itself, while affirming Parliament's Article 3 power to have created it
"Restoring Statehood" specifically means reversing the J&K (not Ladakh) half of this 2019 bifurcation — i.e., re-enacting J&K's status from a Section 239A Union Territory back to a full State under Part VI, which requires a fresh Act of Parliament, not an executive order.
Article 3 — Parliament's Power to Form, Alter, or Reorganise States
Article 3 of the Constitution empowers Parliament, by a simple majority (an ordinary law, not a constitutional amendment), to form a new state, alter the boundaries of an existing state, or convert a state into a Union Territory (and vice versa). A Bill under Article 3 requires prior Presidential recommendation and reference to the affected state legislature for its views (not consent) before introduction.
Key Details
- Explanation I to Article 3 clarifies that "State" includes a Union Territory, but the proviso does not extend the same procedural requirement (legislature reference) to converting a UT back into a State
- The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment relied on Article 3 read with its Explanation I to uphold Parliament's competence to reorganise J&K into two UTs
- Restoring J&K to full statehood would itself be an Article 3 exercise — a Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Act converting the UT into a State — requiring only a simple parliamentary majority, unlike a Constitutional Amendment Bill under Article 368
The "mechanism" for restoring statehood is legally straightforward (an ordinary Article 3 law) even though it remains politically and administratively pending — this is the constitutional core the commentary highlights.
Union Territory versus State Governance — Article 239 to 239A Compared with Part VI
Union Territories are administered by the President through an Administrator (Article 239), with some UTs like Puducherry and now J&K given elected legislatures under Article 239A. This differs fundamentally from States under Part VI, which have an elected Governor bound by ministerial advice, full legislative competence over State and Concurrent List subjects (subject to Article 254), and no Union-appointed Lieutenant Governor with discretionary "reserved" powers over subjects like police and public order.
Key Details
- In a full State, the Governor (Article 153-167) acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in nearly all matters; in a UT with legislature, the Lieutenant Governor retains discretionary control over specified subjects (police, public order, and All-India Services postings, per the J&K Reorganisation Act's business rules)
- Full statehood would restore a state Governor's role, remove the LG's overriding discretion on police/public order, and allow the state's own police force and legislative jurisdiction over the full State List
- Comparable historical precedent: several Part C states (e.g., undivided Punjab's successor states) and territories like Delhi (a UT with a partial legislature under Article 239AA) illustrate the spectrum between full UT control and full statehood
The practical stakes of "restoring statehood" lie in this Governor/Lieutenant-Governor and police/public-order distinction — a full State's elected government has powers that a Section 239A Union Territory's government does not.
- Article 370 rendered inoperative: 5-6 August 2019 (Presidential Orders under Article 370(1))
- J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019: received Presidential assent 9 August 2019; UTs came into existence 31 October 2019
- Supreme Court verdict on Article 370: 11 December 2023, In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution, 5-judge bench (unanimous)
- Court-directed Assembly election deadline: by 30 September 2024
- J&K Legislative Assembly strength under Article 239A framework: 107-114 seats (with Union Territory-specific composition)
- Subjects reserved to the Union in J&K UT despite elected legislature: Public Order, Police
- Legal route for restoring full statehood: ordinary law under Article 3 (simple parliamentary majority), not a Constitutional Amendment