Dhavan : If the procedures are not followed, it is susceptible to judicial review. They had clearly not followed the same. Concurrence for any modification was not taken.
Bench rises for lunch.
Dhavan : The Amendment the Constitution must be subjected to basic structure. Any Amendment made to the Constitution of J&K has to be under Section 147. Anything under COI is Article 368. These must be followed.
Gavai J. - But, what is the point of this map ?
Dhavan - I merely wanted to point out that a State was dismembered. A brick state devoured by the powers of the Union.
Dhavan showing a map of J&K to the Court. SG objected to it, saying that it was irrelevant to the submissions.
Dhavan - If the Ld. AG can take us for a historical trip, I can very well show a map. I do not need your permission for anything.
Dhavan : On the reference, if a matter is to be referred to a larger Bench as per Article 143 of the a Constitution of India, the only legal principle we must remember is the “Per Incuriam Rule”. Coordinate benches should not be giving differing judgements.
Dhavan : A State was demoted to the status of a UT using Article 3 of the Constitution of India for the first time ! If they do this for one state, they can do it for any State.
#Article370 #JammuKashmir
Sr. Adv. Rajeev Dhawan has begun his submissions.
I am opposing the question of reference. The historical trip that the Ld. AG took us through was quite irrelevant.
Kaul J. - We heard Mr. Shah yesterday. We have to hear this too. All perspectives need to be heard.
RD - The practice of the court is that the AG is heard of anything and everything !
Coming to the submissions, while I oppose reference, I also oppose the Union’s interpretations of the two judgements. PN Kaul must be understood in the light of competence, while SP is an extension of detention cases.
SolicitorGeneral - It has been reported, and we know we very clearly on who the separatists are. Mr. Shah had mentioned this too. I want to show the court who the real separatists are.
Sr. Adv. Rajeev Dhawan gets up and says that such political statements are not welcome.
SG - What about the statements put forward by Shah ? They were political in nature. He was justifying the secessionist movement to the Court ! Should that have been done ? No. It should not be allowed.
Kaul J. - Let us focus on the matters of reference. Please continue.
AG reading out both PN Kaul and Sampat Prakash to highlight that the judgements are fundamentally the same. There is no conflict between the two.
AG : There is no conflict between Sampat Prakash and Prem Nath Kaul. So, how can this issue be referred to a larger Bench ?
AG : Prem Nath Kaul merely talks about the powers of the Constituent Assembly as well as the powers of Yuvraj Karan Singh when the State was transferred to him. Where is Article 370 ?