PCSMANTRA.COMINDIA'S PREMIER EXAM PLATFORM
☰

PCSMANTRA.COM · Study Article

From Article 370 to the Demand for Statehood: Jammu and Kashmir

Why in the News

On 28 September 2026, amid a walkout and uproar by the Bharatiya Janata Party's 29 MLAs, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed a resolution demanding the immediate restoration of "full statehood" - with the support of about 60 of the 90 MLAs. This resolution, moved by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on 25 September, is in the chain of earlier resolutions of 26 June 2000 and 6 November 2024. The government's own officers (the Law Secretary and the Chief Secretary) objected to the discussion, calling the subject "sub judice", which the Speaker termed an "overreach of authority". Petitions for the restoration of statehood are pending in the Supreme Court; in October 2025 the Court had sought the Centre's reply within four weeks.

Imagined original symbolic image of a Kashmir-like scene with a dawn lake and a boat
Original symbolic image: pcsmantra.com

Definition box - essential terms

  • Article 370: the Constitution's "temporary provision" that gave Jammu and Kashmir a special status; made inoperative on 5 August 2019.
  • Article 35A: the constitutional order giving special rights to permanent residents - repealed in 2019.
  • Reorganisation Act 2019: the law that split the former state into two Union Territories - Jammu and Kashmir (with an Assembly) and Ladakh (without an Assembly).
  • Federalism: part of the Constitution's basic structure; the question of the validity of converting a state into a Union Territory is tied to it.
  • Sub judice: a matter being pending before a court.

Background: from 2019 to the 2023 judgment

On 5 August 2019, a presidential order and Parliament's resolutions made Article 370 inoperative, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act divided the state into two Union Territories. On 11 December 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the abrogation of Article 370 as constitutional - it held Article 370 to be a "temporary provision" and called its end "the culmination of the process of integration". But two things remained important: (1) the Court asked for elections to be held by September 2024; (2) on statehood the Court gave no decision then, because the Solicitor General assured that statehood would be restored "at the earliest" after the elections. Justice Sanjiv Khanna's separate concurring opinion had cautioned that converting a state into a Union Territory has serious consequences - it deprives citizens of an elected state government and affects the federal structure - and that this can be proper only on "strong and cogent grounds".

The demand for statehood: 2024 to now

  • October 2024: the cabinet of the newly elected government passed a resolution for the restoration of statehood; on 6 November 2024 the Assembly also passed a resolution.
  • October 2025: on petitions seeking a fixed timeline for the restoration of statehood, the Supreme Court (a bench of the then Chief Justice B.R. Gavai) sought the Centre's reply within four weeks; the petitioners said the Centre's assurance was an "institutional promise", not a political announcement. The Centre cited "several considerations" such as the Pahalgam attack (April 2025).
  • September 2026: the demand rose again at the start of the autumn session on 21 September; the resolution was introduced on 25 September and passed on 28 September. The Chief Minister clarified that the resolution is "only about statehood", not about Article 370/35A - eight amendments (those adding 370/35A) were withdrawn.

Arguments and counter-arguments

  • In favour of the demand: the elections (Lok Sabha 2024, Assembly 2024) were peaceful; the Centre's assurance given in court; the elected government's effectiveness is limited by Union Territory status (such as officers opposing the Chief Minister's proposal); the commitment to the federal structure.
  • The Centre's/opposition's arguments: the security situation is sensitive; deciding the "appropriate time" is the Centre's prerogative; the figures of development and investment after 2019; a constitutional objection to the resolution's wording (BJP).

Way Forward

  1. The judicial side: disposal of the pending petitions and a review of the Centre's reply.
  2. The political side: Centre-state dialogue (the Chief Minister's and the Leader of the Opposition's contacts with the Home Minister continue).
  3. The institutional side: clarification of the division of powers within the Union Territory framework so that the elected government can function.

Conclusion

The question of Article 370 was settled judicially in 2023, but the question of statehood is caught between the assurance recorded in court and the federal structure. The Assembly resolution of 28 September 2026 turns this stalled process into political pressure - the move now rests on the Centre's reply and the court's next hearing.

Practice question (150 words, 10 marks)

"What does the conversion of a state into a Union Territory and the delay in restoring statehood signal for India's federal structure?" Examine critically with reference to Jammu and Kashmir. (150 words, 10 marks)

Key sources

(The Constitution Bench judgment of 11 December 2023 is from the established judicial record; no confirmed report on the outcome of the September 2026 court hearing was available - the article only describes the pendency.)

Download This Article: PDF