Srinagar: The Supreme Court’s reference to the Pahalgam terrorist attack while hearing a petition today August 14 for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood is likely to put the elected government led by chief minister Omar Abdullah in a bind.

Reacting to the apex court’s observations, the ruling National Conference leader Satish Sharma, who is also a cabinet minister, called on the prime minister Narendra Modi to announce the restoration of J&K’s statehood in his Independence Day celebrations on Friday.

“The issue of statehood is out of our domain, but why wait for eight months?” Sharma told reporters in Srinagar, adding that the court should look into “all aspects” and return the “rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Tanvir Sadiq, chief spokesperson of National Conference, termed the observation as “unfortunate”.

“People of J&K are being made to pay a price for the crime they never committed. Even today we are being told that the situation is not good. When the Pahalgam incident happened, J&K was not a state. Law and order was not with the elected government. Those who took responsibility were never punished while people are paying the price,” he said.

J&K lieutenant governor Manoj Sinha had in a recent interview claimed “full responsibility” for the attack in Pahalgam.

Meanwhile, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti said that the SC’s observation reflected the government’s “continued lack of confidence in … (J&K’s) stability” and “a deeper political and psychological deadlock”.

Earlier, the apex court heard a plea by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, a teacher and Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, an activist, both from Kashmir, that J&K’s statehood had not been restored, despite the solicitor general’s assurance during the hearing of petitions challenging the reading down of Article 370.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for applicants told the court:

“It has been 21 months since that judgment (in the Article 370 case), there has been no movement partly because, mylords fairly trusted the Union when they made this statement before the Court that they will implement the statehood”.

He called the delay as a “violation of India's federal structure”.

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, while referring to the carnage at Baisaran meadow in which 26 civilians, mostly tourists, were killed, observed: “You also have to take into consideration ground realities…You can’t ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,”

Sankaranarayanan responded: “In fact, that is why statehood should be given. There is a clear demarcation…”.

The SC bench which also comprised Justice K. Vinod Chandran, observed that the issue of the restoration of J&K’s statehood was “for the executive and Parliament” to take a call on, “We do not have the expertise,” the bench observed.

Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta referred to the “peculiar position” of Jammu and Kashmir where “several considerations …. go into the decision-making process”, “I don’t know why at this stage this issue is agitated. Because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the waters. I don’t know why they are doing this,” he said, according to the Indian Express.

After hearing the plea, the Union government was granted eight weeks for filing its response while advocate Sankaranarayanan urged the court to club and list all such petitions. “If an executor aspect is being sought, then a bench may be constituted and a timeline fixed.”

The linking of the restoration of J&K’s statehood with the security situation in the Union territory which is the domain of the Union home ministry and the local administration led by J&K’s lieutenant governor is likely to bring Abdullah’s elected government under more pressure.

The chief minister is already facing criticism including within his party for adopting a reconciliatory approach towards the Bhartiya Janta Party-led Union government. Abdullah was recently criticised on social media for celebrating the Statue of Unity in Gujarat which has displaced more than 5,000 tribal people

A senior leader from an opposition political party in Kashmir speculated that the SC’s observation could pave the way for restoration of J&K’s statehood in phases, “It is very likely that there will be a two-phased restoration of statehood,” the leader said, wishing to remain anonymous.

In a letter, Abdullah recently urged all political parties to introduce a bill in the Parliament for the restoration of J&K’s statehood, arguing that it was not a “favour” but an “essential course correction”.

Meanwhile, reacting to the SC’s observations, the PDP chief Mufti said that the BJP-led Union government “appears unwilling to ease its tight control” on Jammu and Kashmir after its bifurcation and demotion into two Union territories in 2019. She batted for “dialogue and reconciliation to bring lasting peace and dignity”.

“PDP maintains that the Jammu and Kashmir issue goes far beyond questions of statehood or constitutional status. Unless New Delhi engages with the political aspirations of the people and addresses the core issue head-on it will remain on uncertain footing regardless of the force it deploys,” Mufti said in a post on X.

PDP leader Waheed Para regretted that the SC had allowed the act of terrorism in Pahalgam “to dictate India’s highest constitutional debate”.

“Why should the people of J&K—law-abiding citizens who have upheld the Constitution—be denied equality with every other Indian because of a neighbouring state’s actions? Constitutional rights cannot be contingent on Pakistan’s conduct. Denying statehood on that basis outsources Indian sovereignty to those who seek to undermine it,” he said.

Para added: “There is no legal or empirical basis to claim that keeping J&K a Union Territory will defeat terrorism; what it will erode is the federal structure, the principle of equal treatment, and the very core of representative democracy.”

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.