Opinion P Chidambaram writes: A case of breach of promise

invoked Article 370(1) to add clause (4) to the Interpretation Clause of the Constitution (Article 367);

used the expanded Interpretation Clause and purported to ‘amend’ the proviso to Article 370(3);

used the ‘amended’ Article 370(3) and the proviso thereto, and purported to ‘abrogate’ Article 370 itself.

All three steps were held impermissible and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reasoned that the exercise of power under Article 370(1) applying all the provisions of the Constitution to Jammu & Kashmir was valid and it had the same effect as ‘abrogating’ Article 370.

Let’s have clarity on the legal position: the so-called abrogation of Article 370 was achieved through too clever-by-half drafting. That was ruled it to be impermissible. What was upheld was the application or extension of all the provisions of the Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1).

Matter not closed

Anyway, let’s accept that the special status of J&K was revoked. However, it cannot be gainsaid that the revocation of the special status rankles the people of J&K and fuels the resentment of the people against the high-handedness of the central government.

The matter was not closed with the revocation of Article 370. On August 5, Jammu & Kashmir, a State since its accession, was divided into two Union Territories. Was it permissible and legal? The petitioners prayed that the Supreme Court examine this question too. The Court declined because the central government submitted that it intended to restore the status of J&K (minus the UT of Ladakh) and hold elections. Accepting the submission, the Court left the legal question ‘open’ but stipulated a time limit of September 30, 2024 to hold elections in J&K. Elections were indeed held in J&K in September, 2024 but statehood has not been restored until this day. It is undeniably a breach of promise on the part of the central government.

The BJP and the NDA government are responsible for dragging their feet on restoration of statehood to J&K. Other parties in the NDA are culpable too, to the extent that they are members of the Cabinet and Council of Ministers of the central government.

After winning the elections, the National Conference (NC) formed the government of the U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir on October 16, 2024. It is natural that the NC wished to run the government and give to the people a representative government that had been denied since June 2017.

Presumably, for tactical reasons the NC was not vocal about restoration of statehood. The absence of a strident demand for restoration of statehood led the central government to believe that statehood was not a priority for the people of J&K. On the contrary, deprivation of statehood is a major grievance of the people of the state. Whatever the state government may have delivered in the last 10 months, it does not seem to have earned the goodwill of the people. In hindsight, the NC may realize that it had made a tactical mistake in not being vocal on statehood.

Pahalgam and statehood

The terrorist attack in Pahalgam has shaken everyone. I have maintained that apart from terrorists who are infiltrated by Pakistan there are India-based terrorists. Who strikes where and whether the two groups collaborate in a terror attack depend on the incident and the opportunity. In Pahalgam, the NIA arrested two Indians who allegedly gave shelter to the three Pakistan-based terrorists. After Operation Sindoor, and after eliminating the three foreign terrorists in an encounter on July 28-29, 2025, the government seems to have drawn the curtains on Pahalgam. There is complete silence on the fate of the two arrested persons. Are they still in custody or have they been released and the case closed? That is a mystery.

But the people remember. They remember that the promise of restoration of statehood has not been fulfilled. When some petitioners moved the Supreme Court for fulfillment of the promise, the Court made certain oral observations to the effect that what happened in Pahalgam cannot be ignored. The observations may have disillusioned the people of J&K further. The next hearing has been scheduled in about 8 weeks.

In my view, the Supreme Court must be focused on the legal issue. The ebb and flow of political and security issues ought not to deflect it from rendering justice according to law. The legal issue was crystallized before the Supreme Court. The Court refrained from deciding the issue based on a promise to the Court. The promise has not been fulfilled in 20 months. The choice is between mandating the fulfillment of the promise forthwith or rendering a judgement on the legal issue that is at large. I believe the Constitutional Court will render justice.