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 order 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' counsels 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." As the arguments continued, Sankaranarayanan requested that the matter be placed before a five-judge bench, given that the original undertaking was made before one. But Mehta maintained that the Centre was in consultation with the newly elected Jammu and Kashmir government and that such decisions could not be rushed. "It cannot be for a handful of people who do not even consider our government as their government to present a grim picture. This is not a matter where I can make loose statements," he remarked. In its order, the bench recorded that the petitioners had relied on the Union's assurance of restoring statehood, and referred to an order by one of the constitution bench judges which explicitly noted that the restoration would follow elections. The petitioners also pointed out that the Jammu and Kashmir cabinet had passed a resolution recommending restoration of statehood. Recording the submissions, the bench noted Mehta's statement that the assembly elections had been conducted peacefully, leading to an elected government, and that "substantial progress has taken place in the Union territory over the last six years." He also cited recent security incidents, including Pahalgam, as part of the government's ongoing evaluation. The court then granted the Centre four weeks to file its response. The matter traces its roots to an application filed earlier this year seeking a time-bound restoration of statehood to J&K, a demand arising from the Supreme Court's December 11, 2023 judgment upholding the abrogation of Article 370. While the five-judge bench had validated the August 5, 2019, decision of Parliament to revoke J&K's special status and bifurcate it into two UTs, it had recorded the Centre's assurance that statehood would be restored "at the earliest." The court had also directed that assembly elections be held by September 2024. The polls were eventually held in three phases between September 18 and October 1, 2024, culminating in the formation of a National Conference-Congress alliance government, with Omar Abdullah sworn in as chief minister. At the previous hearing on August 14, the same bench had observed that "ground realities" could not be ignored, citing the terror attack in Pahalgam earlier in April, in which 25 tourists and a pony operator were killed. The attack triggered India's Operation Sindoor, a four-day military escalation that saw Indian forces strike multiple terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir....