The J&K Assembly’s stormy session highlighted growing differences between the elected government and Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha’s administration over powers and governance.

The traders of Srinagar’s famed Boulevard arcades had waited nearly two months for a meeting with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah—two months of chasing files, calling offices and hoping someone in the administration would listen. When they finally met him, they put forward their grievances, and Abdullah, sympathetic and visibly frustrated, wrote a strongly worded recommendation to the concerned department. To avoid the usual bureaucratic delays, he even agreed that the traders could personally deliver the letter to the official concerned.

What followed stunned them.

The official, a senior woman IAS officer, reportedly glanced at the letter, tossed it onto the floor and declared, “Who is he to tell us what to do? We come under the Lieutenant Governor.”

In that moment, the traders felt they had knocked on the wrong door. Abdullah’s endorsement appeared to carry little weight. His authority, at least in the eyes of the bureaucracy, seemed secondary. Disillusioned, they decided their next stop would be Lok Bhavan—the Lieutenant Governor’s office—which they now believed to be the more effective seat of power in Jammu and Kashmir.

The incident, as recounted by the traders, has come to symbolise a deeper rift between the elected government and the administration operating under the Lieutenant Governor.

During the recently concluded autumn session of the J&K Legislative Assembly, Abdullah openly spoke of the constraints facing his government. He said several institutions, including the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages, were functioning under direct instructions from the Lt. Governor’s office. The academy, established in 1958 and reconstituted following the 2019 reorganisation, is an autonomous institution.

Abdullah said the interference extended to departments such as Revenue, which, under the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, falls within the domain of the elected government. He also questioned why crucial Business Rules sent to the Centre had remained pending for nearly two years, why the government still lacked an Advocate General, and why routine governance had become entangled in bureaucratic delays.

The tension escalated when Abdullah disclosed that Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo and Law Secretary Achal Sethi had written to Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather claiming that the issue of statehood was sub judice. Abdullah, who also holds the Law portfolio, said he had not seen the letters before they were sent.

“On whose behest were these letters sent?” he asked, presenting the episode as an example of bureaucrats bypassing the elected government.

Despite the objections, the Speaker allowed the Chief Minister’s resolution seeking restoration of full statehood to be introduced. After hours of disruptions, protests and the marshaling out of legislators, the Assembly adopted the resolution, urging the Government of India to restore statehood without delay.

The fallout was immediate. PDP legislator Waheed Ur Rehman Para submitted a Motion of Privilege against the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary, arguing that bureaucrats could not question or constrain the Legislature’s right to debate and adopt resolutions. He said such intervention could undermine the separation of powers and the democratic mandate of the House.

Abdullah also referred to an earlier controversy raised by Congress MLA Nizamuddin Bhat, who had criticised the Centre over environmental clearance for a 93 MW hydroelectric project in Ganderbal. Abdullah cited the episode to underline what he described as a pattern of decisions involving the elected government being delayed or overridden.

The BJP, however, has repeatedly rejected the Chief Minister’s criticism, accusing his government of using the Centre and the Lt. Governor’s office as an excuse for its own shortcomings. Senior BJP leaders, including Leader of Opposition Sunil Sharma, have accused the administration of poor performance, corruption and failing to address basic governance issues.

Lt. Governor Manoj Sinha, meanwhile, has maintained that his office functions within the constitutional and administrative framework established under the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019. He has said the Lt. Governor’s administration deals with matters falling within its legally defined domain, while day-to-day governance rests with the elected government.

The political confrontation also spilled into the functioning of the Assembly. The BJP accused Speaker Rather of acting unconstitutionally by ignoring the bureaucrats’ letters and allowing the statehood resolution to proceed. BJP MLA R.S. Pathania subsequently moved a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, triggering protests and demands that Rather vacate the chair.

Pathania argued that once a removal motion had been submitted, the Speaker should refrain from conducting proceedings. Rather responded that the motion would be listed according to the rules and could be taken up only after 14 days. He told Pathania, a lawyer, that he had misread the relevant provisions.

As the weeklong session drew to a close, Rather said he preferred the no-confidence motion to be taken up in the next session. He said he wanted the motion to be formally placed before the House and debated at length so that he could understand his shortcomings.

The autumn session was marked by walkouts, heated exchanges, protests, physical confrontations and repeated adjournments. But beneath the disorder lay a larger institutional question: how effectively can an elected government exercise authority within the present administrative structure of Jammu and Kashmir?

The statehood debate brought that question into sharp focus. The elected government and the Lt. Governor’s administration continue to operate within different spheres of authority, while disputes over those boundaries increasingly play out in the Assembly, the bureaucracy and the courts.

For Jammu and Kashmir, the issue is no longer simply about who controls individual files or departments. It is about how the relationship between the elected government, the Lt. Governor and the Centre will evolve—and whether the existing arrangement can provide a clear and workable chain of accountability for governance.


Tags: