Of States and the Union: Why Jammu and Kashmir’s Statehood is a Federal Question 

The recent Supreme Court directive for the Centre to detail its plans on restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir highlights a critical test of India’s federal principles. While the Constitution allows Parliament to reorganize states, converting a state into a Union Territory is seen as a dilution of its federal autonomy. The Court has already upheld the abrogation of Article 370 but unequivocally mandated the restoration of statehood and elections. Although assembly elections were held in October 2024, statehood remains pending.

This delay creates a democratic deficit, curtailing the powers of elected representatives and centralizing governance. Restoring statehood is essential to reaffirm Jammu and Kashmir’s parity with other states and uphold the federal balance that is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.

Of States and the Union: Why Jammu and Kashmir’s Statehood is a Federal Question 

The recent Supreme Court directive for the Centre to detail its plans on restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir is more than a regional issue; it is a pivotal moment for India’s constitutional identity. This debate forces a national conversation on the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the States and the very essence of India’s federal design. 

The Constitutional Blueprint for Creating States 

India’s Constitution provides a clear, parliamentary pathway for the creation and reorganisation of states, a process that has shaped the modern union. This can happen through three primary mechanisms: 

• Admission: This process integrates a politically organised entity into India via an instrument of accession, guided by international law. This is how the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir became part of India in 1947. 

• Establishment: This involves integrating acquired territories (like Goa or Sikkim) as new states. 

• Formation/Reorganisation: This is the most common method, governed by Article 3 of the Constitution. It allows Parliament to: 

• Form a new state by separating territory from an existing one. 

• Unite two or more states or parts of states. 

• Increase or diminish the area of any state. 

• Alter the boundaries or name of any state. 

However, a critical legal and philosophical argument emerges here: while Parliament can “diminish” the area of a state, converting a full-fledged state into a Union Territory is seen by many experts as a step too far. This action is perceived as a dilution of federal principles, centralising power in a manner that goes beyond the intended scope of Article 3. 

The Heart of the Matter: India’s “Indestructible Union of Destructible States” 

India’s federal structure is unique. It is described as a “Union of States” because its integrity is indivisible—no state has the right to secede. This strong Centre was a conscious choice by the framers of the Constitution to safeguard national unity and integrity. 

Yet, this “unitary spirit” is perfectly balanced by a “federal character.” The existence of empowered states is not an administrative convenience; it is a fundamental feature of the Indian republic. This federal character is so vital that the Supreme Court has cemented it as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution—a doctrine that cannot be altered by Parliament. 

The Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house, is the ultimate symbol of this federal partnership. Its permanence (it is never dissolved) ensures that states always have a direct voice in national legislation, upholding the principle of shared sovereignty. To undermine a state’s autonomy is to upset this careful constitutional equilibrium. 

The Jammu and Kashmir Conundrum 

The application of these principles is at the core of the current debate: 

• The 2019 Reorganisation Act: The Centre bifurcated the former state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: Ladakh (without a legislature) and Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislature). 

• The Supreme Court’s 2023 Verdict: While upholding the government’s decision to abrogate Article 370, the Supreme Court unequivocally directed the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir “at the earliest” and to hold elections to the Legislative Assembly by September 2024. 

• The Current Status: Assembly elections were successfully held in October 2024, fulfilling one part of the court’s directive. However, the restoration of statehood remains pending, creating a democratic deficit where an elected government does not have the full powers of a state government. 

Why Restoration Matters: Beyond Politics 

The delay in restoring statehood has tangible consequences: 

• Democratic Deficit: An elected government operating under the limited framework of a Union Territory is not the same as a full-fledged state government. Key powers over police, public order, and land remain with the Centre-appointed Lieutenant Governor, curtailing the mandate of elected representatives. 

• Economic and Development Hurdles: Statehood brings greater autonomy in planning and implementation of development projects, attracting investments, and tailoring policies to local needs. Its absence can centralise decision-making, potentially slowing down progress. 

• Psychological and Social Impact: For the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, statehood is a symbol of their place and parity within the Indian Union. Its continued suspension fosters a sense of political disenfranchisement and alienation. 

The Path Forward 

The Supreme Court’s recent intervention is a reminder of the Constitution’s checks and balances. The government has cited improved security conditions and successful elections as signs of normalcy. The logical next step, as dictated by both the court and constitutional propriety, is to complete this process by reinstating statehood. 

Restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood is not a concession; it is a reaffirmation of India’s commitment to federalism. It would demonstrate that the Union’s strength lies not in centralising power, but in empowering its constituent units, thereby strengthening the nation as a whole. It is the essential final step in fully integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian framework—not just administratively, but in spirit and constitutional practice.