The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bill stands as one of the most significant legislative developments in recent times concerning the sensitive political and administrative framework of Jammu and Kashmir. To understand its importance, one must first recall the background from which it emerges. In August 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution, which had for decades granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
With this constitutional change came the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which bifurcated the state into two union territories: Jammu and Kashmir with its own legislative assembly, and Ladakh without one. This reorganization marked a watershed in the constitutional history of India, ending a prolonged chapter of semi-autonomy while also promising new pathways of political inclusion, representation, and governance. Yet, as with all historical transitions, the initial legislation left many unanswered questions about representation, electoral fairness, and the balance of power in this newly created framework.
It was in this context that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bill, 2023, was introduced and later passed by Parliament. The Bill sought to give effect to the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission constituted in March 2020, which had been tasked with redrawing the boundaries of assembly constituencies and ensuring proportional representation in accordance with demographic changes.
The most striking provision of the amendment was the expansion of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from eighty-three to ninety seats. Technically, the total number of seats rose from one hundred and seven to one hundred and fourteen, but this included seats reserved for constituencies lying in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) which have remained vacant. The practical outcome was an increase in directly contestable seats, an attempt to ensure more balanced representation of different regions within the Union Territory.
Equally significant was the decision to increase the number of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes from six to seven and, for the first time in the history of Jammu and Kashmir, to reserve nine seats for Scheduled Tribes. This provision marked an important moment of inclusion. For decades, tribal communities such as the Gujjars and Bakarwals had been politically marginalized, despite their numerical strength and unique cultural heritage. Their recognition in the form of reserved assembly seats symbolized an acknowledgment of their role within the democratic framework of the region.
In the same spirit of inclusion, the amendment provided for the nomination of two members from the Kashmiri migrant community to the assembly, one of whom must be a woman, and one additional nomination for persons displaced from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). These measures reflected an effort to address the political disenfranchisement of displaced groups, particularly the Kashmiri Pandits, who were forced to leave the Valley in the turmoil of the 1990s. By granting them representation, even if through nomination, the amendment bill symbolically sought to reintegrate them into the political mainstream of the place they once called home.
The 2023 amendment thus represented an attempt to broaden the democratic base of Jammu and Kashmir. Its provisions were more than mere adjustments of numbers; they reflected a conscious effort by the Indian state to reshape the representative structure of a territory long plagued by conflict, alienation, and political discontent. By increasing seats, redrawing constituencies, and including historically marginalized communities, the government intended to project a narrative of fairness, balance, and inclusivity.
Yet, as with all legislative interventions in the Valley, reactions were mixed. Supporters hailed it as a step toward genuine democracy, representation, and justice, while critics argued that the exercise was engineered to tilt the political balance in favour of particular regions or parties. Nonetheless, the amendment was passed, and with it, the framework of representation in Jammu and Kashmir was significantly altered.
As the dust settled on this reorganization of assembly representation, attention soon shifted toward another, perhaps even more consequential proposal—the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Unlike its predecessor, which dealt with questions of representation, this new amendment sought to address issues of accountability in governance. It proposed to amend Section 54 of the 2019 Act by laying down a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or any minister of the Union Territory if they were arrested and detained on serious criminal charges.
The stipulation was that if any such leader were arrested for an offence punishable with five years of imprisonment or more, and remained in detention for thirty consecutive days, they would be required either to resign voluntarily or to be recommended for removal by the Chief Minister. In cases where this recommendation did not occur, the law would automatically enforce their removal from office after the thirty-first day.
The significance of this provision lies in its emphasis on probity and accountability in public life. Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed decades of violence, and a complex interplay of politics and terrorism. Allegations of corruption, criminality, and misuse of power have not been unfamiliar in its political landscape.
The 2025 amendment aims to ensure that those holding high office cannot continue to exercise executive authority while under serious criminal investigation or detention. By creating a legal mechanism for their automatic removal, it seeks to preserve the credibility of governance in the Union Territory. It also sends a strong message that the highest offices of power must be beyond reproach, particularly in a region where governance has often been viewed through the prism of suspicion and mistrust.
Together, the 2023 and 2025 amendments reveal a dual trajectory of the Indian state’s approach to Jammu and Kashmir in the post-2019 era. On one hand, there is an effort to broaden representation, give voice to marginalized communities, and integrate displaced groups into the democratic process. On the other hand, there is an attempt to enforce stricter accountability on those who wield power, ensuring that governance is not held hostage to criminality or detentions. Both aspects flow from the larger vision of creating a more stable, representative, and accountable political framework in a region that has for decades tested the resilience of Indian democracy.
Of course, the true measure of these legislative changes will be seen in practice. Representation on paper does not automatically translate into empowerment unless backed by fair elections, genuine participation, and responsive governance. Similarly, accountability clauses must be applied in a manner that is free of political bias or selective targeting, for their credibility rests on even-handed enforcement.
Critics argue that such amendments, while couched in democratic language, may be deployed to disqualify or weaken political opponents under the pretext of criminal charges, particularly in a region where politics and security concerns are deeply intertwined. Supporters, however, insist that without such mechanisms, the credibility of democratic institutions cannot be sustained in a territory scarred by violence and instability.
Yet, whatever one’s stance, there is little doubt that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bills of 2023 and 2025 mark important milestones in the evolving story of governance in the Union Territory. They demonstrate the continuing effort of the Indian state to recalibrate political structures, balance competing interests, and strengthen the credibility of governance after the historic decision of 2019. They reflect the recognition that in a place as complex as Jammu and Kashmir, democracy must be both inclusive and accountable if it is to take firm root.
The reserved seats for tribals, migrants, and displaced persons seek to heal old wounds of exclusion, while the provisions for automatic removal of detained leaders aim to prevent governance from slipping into disrepute. In that sense, these amendments are not just technical adjustments to a legal framework; they are instruments through which the state attempts to redefine the contours of politics in one of the most sensitive regions of the country.
The road ahead remains fraught with challenges. Elections in Jammu and Kashmir will test the practical implications of these amendments, and the response of its people will determine whether they perceive these reforms as genuine instruments of empowerment or as imposed structures.
In the end, the success of such legislative initiatives lies not only in their legal text but in their ability to inspire trust among the people they are meant to serve. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Amendment) Bills are thus chapters in a much larger story where history, politics, and law converge in ways that continue to shape the destiny of J&K UT
(Author is RK columnist and can be reached at: [email protected])
