Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 2]

CJI DY Chandrachud: Possibly, the meaning which can be attributed to the proviso to (d) is this- when the president is making an exception or modification to another provision of Constitution, then the President has been given the power.

CJI DY Chandrachud: The first proviso to (d) will obviously not cover that category.

CJI DY Chandrachud: I was just thinking aloud- (b)(i) refers to the specification of matters which are covered by the IoA, in respect of which parliament can make laws.

Sibal: Clause (b)(i) says "make law"- it only deals with the lists.

CJI DY Chandrachud: What's the distinction between consultation with the Govt of State which is referred to in the first proviso to Art 370(1)(d) and then clause (i) of (b). There has to be a reason.

Sibal: This is passed by a constitutional order applicable to J&K. That's the solemn promise made- that you will not change the boundaries. And that's with concurrence. And that's exactly what they did without concurrence.

Sibal: That's why I want to show you the 1954 constitutional order which superseded the 1950 order. And it'll show what was done. Nothing was ever done without concurrence except those four items. Never.

Sibal: 370(1)(b)(i) and (ii) talks of the lists. Then you come to the application of Constitutional orders to J&K. Qua any law passed under the lists- if it relates to IoA, consultation, if other things, concurrence.

Sibal: But substantive provisions of the Constitution were made applicable- that also with concurrence.

Sibal: This was being done between 1951-57 when the Constitution was being made.

Sibal: There were substantive provisions of the Constitution of India that were to be made applicable to J&K- the DPSPs or even Article 356. These were all done through the application order. That's the power under 370(1)(d)- with concurrence.

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal (appearing for NCP leader Mohammad Akbar Lone): There is a nuanced interpretation of Article 370.