Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 13]

Salve: Disapplying 370 was carved out and put in (3). That can't be a provision limited in time to the existence of a constituent assembly. That is what explains why recommendation rather than concurrence...

Salve: This was meant to operate much beyond the Constituent Assembly because that concurrence would continue. There would always be a state government.

Salve: What that state government would be is another matter.

Salve: This dichotomy was built in.

Salve: Look at one important nuance of this Article- in sub clause (d), "such of the other provisions of this constitution shall apply..." So power to president to apply, disapply, apply with modifications...this doesn't require concurrence.

Salve: One cannot search for too much logic. The safest thing for this court, in my submission, as a matter of constitutional interpretation of such provisions-which are political, the court has always said you must give these the widest possible meaning.

Salve: It may be difficult to find logic in each of this because it was a political compromise. Why was a constituent assembly put in place? It was a compromise - done to assuage.

Salve: The history of Kashmir did give rise to apprehensions. So border state, with all its sensitivities, is what compelled the Constituent Assembly to agree to the special arrangement. And with their wisdom they said you have the power to pull the plug.

Salve: Your lordships have seen how phase by phase this divide has been narrowed down. More and more subjects were added, more and more alignment was made.

Salve: The framers kept with the president the power to do away with this Article.

Salve: There was a safety valve in Article 370(3). If the political compromise in 370(1) fails to achieve the purpose, it might become necessary to pull the plug. 370(3) is that plug