Today is the 12th day of hearing before the Supreme Court in the Article 370 case.A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant will hear petitions challenging the repeal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.Live-updates from the hearing can be tracked...
Today is the 12th day of hearing before the Supreme Court in the Article 370 case.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant will hear petitions challenging the repeal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Live-updates from the hearing can be tracked here.
The bench rises for the day.
CJI: And therefore what was done in 2019, was it really a logical step forward to achieve that integration?
CJI: In that sense it was not a complete migration from absolute autonomy to absolute integration. It is obvious that a substantial degree of integration had already taken place between 1950-2019- in 69 years.
CJI: One last word - the wide chasm between absolute autonomy as it existed on 26 Jan 1950 and complete integration as brought on 5 August 2019- that chasm had been substantially bridged by what had happened in between.
SG: It cannot be for the simple reason that the Debates in the constituent assembly clearly say that 370 was a temporary provision.
SG: I have a question which you may consider on the holiday- When constituent assembly was being dissolved, suppose the members would say now with J&K constitution they are like a monarchy and now A 370 can be done away with- would the president have to act in this fashion?
CJI: A 367 was followed since there was an absence of constituent assembly and there was no legislative assembly...but in this process there is a dilution- that is the role prescribed by 370(3). You say that role is mere recommendatory but that doesn't mean it can be overridden.
AG: The answer is no.
CJI: If that power is not lost then is it an unilateral power which can be exercised by the president?
CJI: You're right that this was in the aid of constitutional integration...there was undoubtedly a gradual integration...but there are two ways to look at it- If the proviso to 370(3) cannot apply does it mean substantive power under 370 is denuded or lost?
AG: The constitutional integrity is the only mantra while framing article 370, everything else revolved around it.