Why in News?
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 divided the erstwhile State into two Union Territories - J&K with a legislature and Ladakh without a legislature, effective from 31 October 2019.
This significantly altered J&K’s position within India’s federal structure.
The Supreme Court’s December 2023 Article 370 judgment upheld the constitutional changes and directed restoration of J&K’s statehood ‘at the earliest and as soon as possible.’
The Court also directed that Assembly elections be held by 30 September 2024.
On 28 September 2026, the J&K Assembly passed a resolution seeking the ‘immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood.’
Democratic Mandate and Significance of Statehood
Restoration of elected government: The 2024 Assembly election, the first since 2014, restored an elected legislature after nearly a decade.
- Example: Elections were completed within the Supreme Court’s stipulated timeframe.
High electoral participation: Overall Assembly-election turnout was approximately 63.9%, with phase-wise turnout of 61.38%, 57.31% and 65.58%.
- Election Commission data indicate substantial participation across all three phases.
Greater political engagement: The 2024 Lok Sabha election recorded 58.65% turnout in J&K, compared with 44.37% in 2019.
- Example: Increased participation provided an institutional avenue for political expression.
Federalism: Statehood would restore a fuller State-level constitutional framework.
- The Supreme Court recognised the significant federal implications of converting a State into a UT.
Democratic accountability: A State government would have a broader sphere of legislative and executive responsibility.
- Example: Existing disputes over administrative authority demonstrate the importance of clearly defined powers.
Political mainstreaming: An empowered legislature can channel debates over employment, development and regional aspirations into constitutional processes.
- Example: The 2026 statehood resolution itself illustrates legislative engagement with the issue.
Constitutional Distinctions and Political Debate
Statehood ≠ Article 370: Restoration of statehood does not automatically restore the pre-2019 constitutional arrangement.
- The Supreme Court treated statehood restoration separately from the Article 370 question.
Limited legal effect of resolutions: An Assembly resolution expresses the House’s political position but cannot itself change J&K’s constitutional status.
- Example: The 2026 resolution seeks action from the Government of India.
Historical continuity: The 2026 resolution referred to the 2000 autonomy resolution and November 2024 special-status resolution.
- Example: These demonstrate the changing nature of J&K’s political demands.
Political disagreement: BJP legislators opposed the 2026 resolution and walked out before its passage.
- Example: The episode demonstrates differences over statehood and the pre-2019 constitutional framework.
Institutional relevance: The debate illustrates the need to distinguish constitutional questions from competing political positions.
- Example: Statehood can be considered independently of demands concerning special status.
Challenges
Security concerns: J&K remains strategically sensitive and requires strong Union involvement in defence, border security and counter-terrorism.
- Example: Cross-border terrorism necessitates continued central security coordination.
Centre-State friction: Ambiguity over administrative powers can generate institutional disputes.
- Example: The 2026 Law Department-Assembly controversy highlighted tensions concerning institutional authority.
Regional aspirations: Jammu, Kashmir and different social groups possess diverse political interests.
- Example: The divided response to the 2026 resolution demonstrates the need for broader consultation.
Political polarisation: Statehood debates may become intertwined with Article 370 and autonomy-related disputes.
- Example: BJP objections to references associated with the pre-2019 framework illustrate this complexity.
Administrative transition: Moving from UT to State requires adjustment of institutions, functions and administrative responsibilities + Clear redistribution of powers would be necessary to avoid jurisdictional conflicts.
Way Forward
Time-bound roadmap: Establish a transparent process for statehood restoration.
- The Supreme Court directed restoration ‘at the earliest and as soon as possible.’
Security–democracy balance: Continue counter-terrorism measures while expanding representative governance.
- Example: The 2024 elections demonstrated that electoral participation can occur alongside security requirements.
Clear division of powers: Precisely define Centre-State legislative and executive responsibilities.
- Example: Clear jurisdiction can reduce disputes between elected representatives and officials.
Inclusive consultation: Incorporate concerns of Jammu, Kashmir and diverse communities.
- Example: Inter-regional dialogue can help build broader institutional acceptance.
Strengthen the Assembly: Make the elected legislature the principal forum for political dialogue and policymaking.
- Example: The 2024 electoral mandate provides an institutional foundation for sustained constitutional engagement.
