New Delhi, Oct. 11 -- The Supreme Court on Friday underlined the complexity of fixing a rigid timeline for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, observing that such a decision involves several considerations, including the region's fragile security situation and the recent terror attack in Pahalgam. A bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, hearing a bunch of applications seeking time-bound restoration of statehood to the erstwhile state, adjourned the matter for four weeks after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, sought more time to respond. "This is a decision that has to be taken after taking into account several considerations. Pahalgam did not take place too long ago," the CJI observed during the brief but charged exchange in court. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing academic Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, pressed that the government had given a solemn undertaking before the five-judge Constitution bench in December 2023 that statehood would be restored after the conduct of elections. "We do not see any movement in deference to that assurance," he said. Assembly elections in the UT were held in October 2024. Mehta responded that the undertaking would be respected, but the matter was not without complexities. "There are several concerns - some of which involve this side of the border and some on the other side of the border. There are wider concerns that have to be taken into account," he said, in an apparent reference to cross-border terrorism and the security environment in the region. When Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the Pahalgam attack occurred under the present government's watch, Mehta quipped: "Not under 'your' watch but under 'our' watch because the government is also for the petitioners." The exchanges grew pointed as the petitioners insisted that the court hold the Centre accountable to its promise. "The court was not invited to deliver a judgment on the validity of the bifurcation based on an undertaking by the government. We expect the government to be held accountable to their statement. Much water has flown since the court's judgment," Sankaranarayanan said. To this, Mehta retorted, "Not just water but much blood has also flown after the government's undertaking." Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Irfan Hafiz Lone, an MLA from Jammu and Kashmir, reminded the bench that the Supreme Court had refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the reorganisation of J&K into two Union territories -- Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, solely on the basis of the Centre's assurance. "It was on the basis of the Union's statement that the court did not decide the legal questions relating to bifurcation. The larger question remains -- can a state be bifurcated into two Union territories, and does this not set a dangerous precedent?" she asked. Another senior advocate, Dinesh Dwivedi, supported the plea, cautioning that such a precedent could one day be applied to any other state. "What is the guarantee it cannot be done to Uttar Pradesh or Bihar?" he asked. The bench, however, intervened to say: "You cannot compare Jammu and Kashmir to Bihar and UP." When one of the petitioners' counsel urged that the Centre at least introduce a bill to begin the process of restoring statehood while citing rising unemployment and suicides in the region, SG retorted: "This is all to present a grim picture of the country at international fora. There are groups of people who want only such a picture to be portrayed to the outside world."...