Supreme Court Constitution Bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishen Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant commenced the hearing of the petitions challenging the Presidential Orders under Article 370 which revoked the special status of Jammu and...
Supreme Court Constitution Bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishen Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant commenced the hearing of the petitions challenging the Presidential Orders under Article 370 which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The relationship between J&K and India under Art. 370 was to remain till the enactment of Consti of J&K. Therefore, it was supposed to be a temporary provision.
J. Kaul - What do you mean ?
DD - Prem Nath Kaul states that it is temporary. Sampat Prakash doesn’t.
This reference cannot be decided by a Five Judges Bench as there is conflict between two Five Judge Benches
AIR 1959 SC 749 AND AIR 1070SC 1118
Sr. Adv. Rajeev Dhawan - This can be considered at a later point, post the rest of the arguments.
J. Ramana - The lawyers had to decide this amongst themselves.
Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi is arguing now on why the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
Conditions of Art. 370(3) had to be satisfied in order to cease the operation of the Article.
SBI v. Santosh Gupta which was based on Sampat Prakash case (1968). In the SBI case, SC had held that Art. 370 was not temporary.
The difference between Damnoo and the current case exists in the fact that in the former, the interpretative changes involved the replacement of the Sadar-i-Riyasat by the Governor as SIR is a defunct post. But, the Centre has used these supposedly minor interpretative changes to completely change the relations between the Centre and the State.
In the current case, the Parliament had made interpretative changes to Art. 367 in order to make changes to Art. 370. Damnoo judgement shows that this cannot be done.
Bench assembled
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran resumes his submissions