Power Tug in Jammu & Kashmir: LG Says ‘I Only Have Police’—Elected Govt Demands Full Statehood for Real Control
By: Javid Amin | Srinagar | 16 June 2025
A Mandate Caught in a Crossfire
Jammu & Kashmir finds itself once again in the throes of a political and constitutional controversy. This time, the tension stems from a series of statements and actions that have reignited the debate over who truly governs the region—the elected government or the Lieutenant Governor (L-G).
The controversy reached a fever pitch when Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha stated that he “only has the police under his control,” and the rest lies with the Chief Minister and the elected government. While this appears to limit the L-G’s authority, elected leaders like Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah strongly disagree, pointing to recent administrative decisions made without consultation.
The result is a clash of governance narratives, where constitutional design and political practice seem to diverge sharply, rekindling the public demand for full statehood.
Choudhary’s Explosive Remarks: ‘Crippled Mandate’ & Street Protest Threats
Deputy CM Choudhary’s press conference this week wasn’t just another political soundbite. It was a veiled ultimatum. Accusing LG Manoj Sinha of “crushing democracy,” Choudhary took direct aim at recent executive decisions that bypassed the elected leadership—including the abrupt transfer of 24 senior IAS and JKAS officers without prior consultation.
“If this continues, we will be forced to take our mandate to the streets—just like Bhagat Singh fought colonial rule,” Choudhary said, drawing historic analogies that resonated deeply across Kashmir’s political spectrum.
He didn’t stop there. He painted a picture of political helplessness, suggesting that the government is merely ceremonial while “real power is being exercised by unelected individuals.”
LG’s Remark: ‘I Only Control the Police’
Contrary to perceptions of LG overreach, Manoj Sinha’s statement declared:
“I only have the police under me. Everything else is with the Chief Minister and his Cabinet.”
At first glance, this appears to affirm democratic authority. However, critics argue that it masks the reality on the ground, where decisions of significance are allegedly being made unilaterally at Raj Bhawan without due consultation with elected representatives.
Political commentators see this as a case of rhetoric diverging from administrative conduct. While the LG publicly downplays his role, transfer orders, budget allocations, and key postings continue to be issued from his office.
The Dual Governance Dilemma
Jammu & Kashmir, after the revocation of Article 370, became a Union Territory with a legislature, akin to Delhi. However, unlike in full-fledged states, the balance of power between the L-G and the elected government remains ill-defined.
While the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 provides the legal framework, it leaves ample room for interpretation. The Act bestows the L-G with sweeping powers, particularly in:
- Law and order (including police)
- Public order
- Transfers and postings
- Internal security
However, the practice of governance shows the L-G playing a central role even in areas technically under the purview of the Chief Minister, according to Choudhary and Abdullah.
Officer Transfers Without Cabinet Input: A Power Grab?
The transfer of 24 senior officers without Cabinet consultation triggered the latest round of conflict. These officers include Deputy Commissioners and Heads of Departments critical to day-to-day governance.
Choudhary described it as an attempt to “silence the elected voice.” This isn’t a one-off incident. Several similar decisions over the last year have occurred without any formal Cabinet deliberation.
The perception of exclusion is fuelling political frustration and public anger. The fundamental question remains: Why hold elections if executive authority is withheld?
The IAS/JKAS Officer Transfers: A Case of Executive Overreach?
The immediate trigger for the current row was the LG-led administration’s decision to transfer 24 high-ranking officers—including District Magistrates and departmental secretaries—without consulting the elected government.
-
Legality vs Ethics: While the LG technically retains the right to approve postings, bypassing the Cabinet signals executive overreach.
-
Precedent & Process: Under previous statehood status, such decisions required Cabinet or CM approval.
-
Democratic Impact: Without participatory decisions, public confidence in governance dwindles.
For Choudhary and Abdullah, the move wasn’t just administrative—it was symbolic of deeper disenfranchisement.
Historic Echoes: Bhagat Singh and Democratic Denial
Choudhary’s reference to Bhagat Singh was not just symbolic. It drew a historical parallel between India’s freedom struggle and the current state of governance in J&K. His implication: if people fight for the right to vote, that vote must mean something.
He questioned whether J&K was any different from a colony if elected leaders are rendered powerless. His remarks, while strong, resonate with a segment of the population that feels increasingly alienated.
Omar Abdullah: ‘Statehood is the Only Solution’
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has consistently demanded the restoration of full statehood for Jammu & Kashmir. In light of recent events, his call has gained new urgency.
“Accountability cannot exist without authority. We are being held responsible for decisions we don’t make.”
Omar argues that true governance requires full administrative control. Anything less reduces the elected government to a symbolic presence.
Constitutional Framework vs Political Reality
According to the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 and J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019:
- The L-G is not bound by the advice of the elected government in all matters.
- He can act independently, particularly in matters related to public order and services.
But there lies the paradox:
- On paper, the CM wields legislative power.
- In practice, executive decisions frequently originate from Raj Bhawan.
This structural confusion leads to conflicting claims of authority, making governance unstable.
Perception vs Practice: Who’s Really in Charge?
The LG’s claim of limited authority contrasts sharply with administrative behaviour. From ordinary citizens to civil servants, the perception is clear: decisions come from the L-G’s office.
This inconsistency undermines both public trust and institutional credibility. When people don’t know who holds real power, they lose faith in the system.
Statehood: From Political Demand to People’s Movement
What was once a demand by political parties has now transformed into a people’s movement. Citizens, especially the youth, increasingly question the value of elections in a system where elected leaders can’t govern.
Full statehood is no longer about political privilege. It has become a demand for democratic dignity. The public wants:
- Power devolved to elected bodies
- Transparency in governance
- End to bureaucratic overreach
Lessons from Delhi: A Legal Parallel
Delhi’s elected government has faced similar issues with its LG. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Delhi government, stating that real power must rest with elected representatives.
Though the Centre later overruled this via ordinance, the verdict highlights a larger principle:
“In a democracy, the people must rule through their representatives.”
This principle applies equally to Jammu & Kashmir, a region that needs democratic healing more than administrative domination.
Possible Scenarios: What Lies Ahead
- Political Escalation: Protests, resignations, or mass mobilization by elected leaders
- Judicial Challenge: A legal battle to define powers more clearly
- Central Reconsideration: Possible restoration of partial statehood to address unrest
- Status Quo: Continued confusion, further erosion of public faith
Bottom-Line: Will the Centre Choose Democracy?
Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha’s assertion that he “only has the police” may be an attempt to project harmony, but the ground reality tells a different story. Elected leaders feel powerless, key decisions bypass them, and the public sees through the façade.
As Deputy CM Choudhary and CM Omar Abdullah amplify their calls for full statehood, the ball is now in the Centre’s court. Will New Delhi respond to this democratic deficit? Or will it allow the perception of governance to deteriorate further?
The answers will shape not just the future of Jammu & Kashmir, but the future of Indian federalism itself.
