Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 3]

Sibal: Second, if there is a textual ambiguity or possibility of another interpretation, the court should not be adrift in a sea of pragmatism.

Sibal: You cannot find ambiguity when none exists. That's the first principle.

Sibal: Please keep three principles in mind when interpreting these orders. First, the clear language of these provisions, in its structural and historical context, ought to be given effect.

The bench has reconvened post lunch.

Sibal: Parliament acting under 356 becomes legislative assembly, recommends to itself, exercising the powers under 370 as Constituent Assembly...So therefore, you assume all powers- of state legislature, parliament, Constituent Assembly and give consent to yourself.

Sibal refers to the list of dates.

Justice Khanna: Let's put it simply. When article 356 is in operation, how will you effectuate clause (4) to Article 370(1)?

Sibal: I will, please let me reach that stage.

Sibal: There's a case where your lordships have said that governor was always the governor, sadar-i-riyasat was only the name...merely because there's a change of nomenclature it's diff, but if you change substance of 370, consideration would be entirely different

CJI: 367(4) was brought in for the first time not with the Constitution but in 1954. So when 367(4) is brought in, if your argument is right, the original insertion of 367(4) is also invalid.

Sibal: No! That is interpretation.

Sibal: So I will not amend 370 but I'll amend 367 to amend 370?