Polity · 16 Jul 2026

J&K statehood restoration Supreme Court assurance

Assertion (A): The Union government's 2023 assurance to the Supreme Court that Jammu and Kashmir's statehood would be restored "at the earliest" does not constitute a legally enforceable, deadline-bound commitment. Reason (R): The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment on Article 370's abrogation did not uphold the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above two statements?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to precisely distinguish what the 2023 Supreme Court judgment actually held (upholding abrogation) from a plausible but incorrect inference about what it did not hold - a nuanced judgement-interpretation skill.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: A Promise With No Deadline Is Not A Promise - It Is A Postponement
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 16 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

Omar Abdullah, J&K's elected Chief Minister, planned a sit-in at Jantar Mantar on July 20, 2026 to demand restoration of statehood powers, over two and a half years after the Centre's assurance to the Supreme Court.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's 2016 GS2 question on Article 370's "temporary" nature shows sustained interest in J&K's constitutional status; this assertion-reasoning format tests whether aspirants can distinguish what the 2023 judgment actually held from what it did not.

Prelims summary

The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment upheld Article 370's abrogation while recording, as a separate assurance, the Union's commitment to restore J&K's statehood "at the earliest" - a promise with no legal enforcement mechanism or fixed timeline.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.