A group of five prominent persons, including former civil servants and military officers, have written an open letter to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, seeking early restoration of statehood for Jammu and Kashmir, which was revoked in August 2019 by the Central government.
The persons, including former Union Home Secretary Gopal Pillai, retired Major-General Ashok K. Mehta, retired Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak, former Jammu & Kashmir interlocutor Radha Kumar, and former Union Secretary of the Inter-State Council, Amitabha Pande, had filed a petition in the Article 370 case, in which the Supreme Court delivered it’s verdict in December 2023.
Raising serious concerns over the Centre’s delay in restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood,
The petitioners wrote a strongly-worded letter to the CJI, stating that despite repeated promises by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the statehood of J&K was yet not restored.
Raising significant constitutional and legal concerns over the delay caused by the Centre, the petitioners urged CJI Gavai to constitute a Special Bench of the Supreme Court to hear petitions related to the constitutionality of the removal of J&K’s statehood, and also asked for a definite timeline for its restoration.
They further sought legal safeguards from the Apex Court to ensure that no future government could similarly abrogate an existing state’s status.
Noting that the Solicitor-General had assured the top court of the country during the proceedings in 2023 that the statehood would be restored at an appropriate time, the petitioners contended that the Centre was yet to fulfill its assurance.
As per the letter, the Union government made repeated promises, both before the Court and in Parliament, which suggested a ‘tacit’ recognition that the removal of statehood was unconstitutional.
The petitioners further raised objection to the Solicitor General’s statement before the Apex Court in December 2023, saying that statehood would be restored in stages. They pointed out that the SG’s statement nullified the constitutional principle that in its entirety, no state could be demoted to a Union Territory.
For the first time in 75 years of independent India, an existing state had been demoted to the status of a Union Territory, they added.
This demotion contravened the Constitution and the basic structure doctrine of India being a federal democracy in which the states’ rights must be respected, which had been the bedrock of the country’s unity for the past 52 years.
Speaking about the Apex Court judgment, they said the Bench had observed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of demoting an existing state in its entirety to two Union Territories as the Solicitor-General had assured that the statehood would be restored at an appropriate time.
They further cited the oral observations made by the then Chief Justice of India, DY
Chandrachud, asking the Central government to restore statehood at the soonest, while setting a deadline for Assembly elections to be held by the end of September 2024.
The petitioners said that Justice Sanjay Khanna, who was part of the Bench that delivered the verdict, attached a separate note to the judgment, in which he termed the demotion of the state to two Union Territories as unconstitutional. He observed that the decision should be summarily reversed.
They said the Central government may again argue that the time was not appropriate for restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, given the Pahalgam terrorist attack of April 2025.
Noting that the Union government’s argument was untenable, the petitioners asserted that this was the right time to restore the statehood of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Given the high turnout in the October 2024 Assembly elections with no violence, coupled with the the fact that the electors chose with absolute majority the National Conference, a regional party,
indicated that people had voted for an elected administration with the strength to govern according to public aspirations.
They pointed out that in its first sitting, the newly-elected Assembly passed a resolution for speedy restoration of statehood.
If the Centre was allowed to implement the policy laid out by the Solicitor General, then all states would be at risk of similar actions being taken against them. This would implode the basic structure doctrine that underpinned the country’s unity in diversity and
provided protection to the states.
Upholding the constitutional right of Jammu and Kashmir was critically important to the nation in the light of the fact that the current environment threatened to erode the rights of several states.
The petitioners apprised the CJI that people of Jammu and Kashmir came out in protest against the Pahalgam terrorist attack. While residents held candlelight demonstrations, traders & business associations called for a bandh and mosque congregations wore black armbands. Chief Cleric of the Kashmir Valley, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, called for mourning the victims and expressed solidarity with the survivors.
As per the letter, government investigators first announced that there were four terrorists, including two Pakistani nationals and two Kashmiris.
They noted that innocent Kashmiris living in other parts of the country were attacked. The residences of Kashmiri civilians accused of being ‘overground workers’ for terrorist
organisations, even those of their relatives or neighbours, were demolished in violation of
Supreme Court orders. The petitioners cited media reports to say that 1500-2000 Kashmiris were detained for questioning.
As per the letter, the National Investigative Agency has recently revealed that the earlier police
findings indicting Kashmiris were unfounded, and the attackers were all Pakistan nationals. They said the maximum accusation, at present, was that two Kashmiris gave the terrorists food, possibly
under duress.
The petitioners alleged that the government haste in unjustified punitive action caused a great deal of anger on the ground, which was aggravated by the sidelining of the elected administration and Assembly during security consultation and initiatives for redress.
They claimed that Chief Minister Omar Abdullah was neither invited to nor briefed on security meetings.
The letter also highlighted the absence of a human rights commission in Jammu and Kashmir, saying that victims could neither approach their MLAs, nor Ministers for aid. Police was also not answerable to the victims of human rights violation.
They further expressed concern over the post-Pahalgam environment prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir, stating that in order to re-establish peace in the valley, it was important to restore the civil and political rights, including oversight institutions. All this would come with statehood, they added.
The post Former civil servants, military officers write letter to CJI BR Gavai seeking statehood for J&K appeared first on India Legal.