J&K CM Omar Abdullah Considers Joining Statehood Plea in Supreme Court: Legal, Constitutional, and Political Implications

October 19, 2025

The ongoing debate over Jammu & Kashmir’s restoration of statehood has taken a significant turn as Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced that he is exploring the possibility of becoming a party to the petitions pending before the Supreme Court. The top court is currently hearing multiple pleas seeking the reinstatement of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, which was revoked on August 5, 2019, following the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh).

Supreme Court Proceedings on Statehood Restoration

On October 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted the Centre four weeks to file its response in the ongoing hearings related to the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. The petitions argue that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism, representative democracy, and constitutional autonomy once guaranteed under Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution.

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, addressing a press conference in Srinagar, revealed that he had held consultations with legal experts in both J&K and Delhi on whether he could intervene as a party in the ongoing case. “As a chief minister, I can explain the disadvantages of being a Union Territory since I have experienced both phases — as CM of a state and of a UT,” Abdullah said.

Political Context and Rejection of Alliance with BJP

Omar Abdullah categorically ruled out any alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), recalling the political and social aftermath of the 2015 PDP-BJP coalition, which he described as detrimental to J&K’s political stability.
He also expressed hope that the restoration of statehood was achievable, emphasizing that it was “unjustified” to link recent security incidents like the Pahalgam terror attack to the political question of statehood. “The elected government of J&K was never responsible for that,” he said, maintaining that governance and security must not be conflated.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

The Constitution of India lays the foundation for the structure of federal relations and statehood restoration through several key provisions:

Article 1 & 3 — Formation and Alteration of States:
Parliament has the authority to form new states, alter boundaries, or change names under Article 3. However, such changes must be accompanied by consultation with the concerned state legislature, as seen in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Article 370 — Special Status (Abrogated in 2019):
Before its abrogation, Article 370 granted J&K autonomous legislative powers, allowing its own constitution and governance structure, barring defense, foreign affairs, and communication. The abrogation effectively brought J&K fully under the Constitution of India.
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019:
This law bifurcated the former state into Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislative assembly) and Ladakh (without assembly). However, the provisions for restoration of statehood remain open-ended, with the Union government stating it would restore statehood “at an appropriate time.”
Article 239A and Article 239AA:
These articles govern the administrative structure of Union Territories with legislatures (like Delhi and Puducherry) and may provide a framework for governance in J&K until full statehood is restored.

Judicial Precedents and Observations

Several judicial decisions form the legal backdrop to this case:

In Re: Article 370, 2023 (Supreme Court 5-Judge Bench Judgment):
The Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370 as constitutionally valid but observed that the Union Territory status of J&K was a temporary measure, suggesting the restoration of statehood should occur “as early as possible.”
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The Court emphasized the federal nature of India and ruled that state autonomy and democratic governance are basic features of the Constitution. Arbitrary or prolonged imposition of central control violates Article 356 and the principle of constitutional federalism.
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006):
Reaffirmed the importance of representative democracy, reinforcing that citizens must have elected state governments accountable to them.

These precedents collectively reinforce that statehood restoration is not merely a political issue but a constitutional imperative rooted in federal balance and democratic governance.

Political Reactions and Bypolls

Omar Abdullah’s remarks come amid the Budgam and Nagrota assembly bypolls scheduled for November 11, 2025. The National Conference (NC) has offered to support its ally Congress in Nagrota, while fielding its own candidate in Budgam.
The J&K Pradesh Congress Committee (JKPCC), led by Tariq Karra, stated that the final decision on contesting would rest with the party high command, reflecting ongoing coordination between the NC and Congress ahead of the elections.

Economic and Administrative Implications

The statehood debate also carries significant implications for economic governance and administrative accountability. As a Union Territory, J&K operates with limited legislative authority, and key decisions rest with the Lieutenant Governor and Union Home Ministry. Critics argue that this structure limits the local government’s ability to address region-specific needs in sectors such as tourism, education, and healthcare.
Omar Abdullah has consistently argued that full statehood would revive investor confidence, improve political stability, and restore democratic legitimacy in governance.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The Supreme Court’s decision on the statehood plea will have far-reaching constitutional and political consequences. While the Centre maintains that statehood will be restored “at an appropriate time,” the absence of a clear timeline continues to fuel public debate and political mobilization in J&K.

If Omar Abdullah becomes a party to the case, it may lend new weight to the argument that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines India’s federal ethos. As the case progresses, it could redefine the delicate balance between national integration and regional autonomy — a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy.