Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 12]

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.