The Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir, bathed in the rhetoric of democratic revival, have produced a spectacle that upon closer inspection is a hollow ritual. The elections, heralded by some as a step toward the restoration of democratic processes, belie the harsh realities of an assembly hobbled by constitutional limitations and political disenfranchisement.
The J&K election, a symbolic ritual more than a substantive democratic process, presents a troubling question: What power can an assembly wield in a union territory where the strings of governance are constitutionally held by New Delhi?
The Constitutional Limitations
The 2019 bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir, enacted through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, saw the region’s autonomy violently curtailed. Under the Act, the former state's division into two Union Territories—Jammu and Kashmir with a legislative assembly, and Ladakh without one—set the stage for a seismic shift in governance. By placing the newly formed UT under the aegis of Article 239A of the Indian Constitution, Jammu and Kashmir was stripped of the robust powers once afforded to its legislature under Article 370 and its own constitution. The legislative powers of this new assembly are, in essence, illusory. Article 239A, borrowed from the administration framework of the Union Territories of Delhi and Puducherry, establishes the legislative assembly's limited authority. Section 13 of the 2019 Act states that Article 239A of the Constitution (“Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories”), which provides for the administration of the UT of Puducherry, shall also apply to the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
In the context of Jammu and Kashmir, this provision ensures that while the assembly may legislate on subjects in the state and concurrent lists, its scope remains woefully circumscribed. Crucially, law and order, land, and police—three vital pillars of governance—remain outside its jurisdiction, vested instead in the Lieutenant Governor (LG), an appointee of the central government. Section 36 of the 2019 Act states that a bill or amendment dealing with financial obligations of the union territory must be recommended by the lieutenant governor before it can be introduced in the legislative assembly.
A Disempowered Assembly
The immediate future of Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly is one of constrained governance. While the Reorganisation Act formally promises legislative powers, the assembly is constitutionally rendered powerless on the issues that matter most. This disempowerment, baked into the very structure of the Union Territory, will not only limit the efficacy of governance but also undermine the democratic legitimacy of the institution itself.
In this environment, political parties face an uphill battle. The National Conference (NC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), both of which have historically anchored themselves in the politics of autonomy, must now operate within a framework where autonomy is constitutionally unattainable. Their ability to offer meaningful resistance or propose an alternative vision for Jammu and Kashmir is diminished. Meanwhile, the BJP, bolstered by its central authority, may seek to reshape the political landscape of the region, but even their promises of development and integration will struggle against the harsh realities of an assembly with no real power to effect change. The assembly, constrained by constitutional provisions and overshadowed by the authority of the central government, is a powerless and toothless institution.
The political future of Jammu and Kashmir remains tied to decisions made in New Delhi, with local representatives left to grapple with the limitations of their mandate, forced to navigate the complexities of governance without the tools required for meaningful change.
Implications for Governance
The political implications of such a constitutional setup are stark. With the assembly's role largely restricted to peripheral issues, the real levers of power reside not in Srinagar but in the offices of bureaucrats in New Delhi and Raj Bhavan. The Lieutenant Governor, backed by the Home Ministry, becomes the ultimate arbiter of significant policy decisions. In essence, while the electoral process may give the appearance of democratic governance, the substance of that governance lies in the hands of central authorities. The implications are especially poignant in a region as politically charged and historically contentious as Jammu and Kashmir.
Elections in this context cannot be viewed merely as an exercise in governance but must be understood as deeply symbolic battles for identity, autonomy, and representation. Yet, the very framework that has emerged post-Reorganisation Act denies this symbolism its agency. The new assembly, however, cannot reconcile these visions. It is structurally incapable of offering a platform for genuine political contestation on the key issues facing the region. Without authority over critical issues, legislators will struggle to fulfill the expectations of their constituents. This risks creating a widening gulf between the electorate and their representatives, further alienating a population already disillusioned by years of political uncertainty and conflict.
Bilal Gani teaches Politics at Government Degree College, Beerwah, Jammu and Kashmir
