Top Stories

[Live UpdatesFrom Supreme Court] Article 370 Hearing-Day 6

23 Jan 2020 5:17 AM GMT
[Live UpdatesFrom Supreme Court] Article 370 Hearing-Day 6
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of Justices N.V. Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, resumed hearing the petitions challenging the abrogation of the special of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution of India, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

Live Updates

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:38 AM GMT

    Ramana J. states that now preliminary issues will be considered. Order reserved on whether to refer the issue to larger bench.

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:36 AM GMT

    Dwivedi : For 70 years, both the Constitutions have worked hand in hand. This can be derived from the will of the framers of the Constituent Assembly as well. These two Constitutions were meant to be kept separate for a reason.

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:24 AM GMT

    Dwivedi : The main issue, and the most astonishing one is whether one modification in an Article of the COI can be used to wipe out an entire Constitution of a State. A Constitution which had been in existence for 70 years. How is that possible ? What changed ?

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:14 AM GMT

    Dinesh Dwivedi starts rebuttal.

    He’s arguing that the provision is not temporary in any manner and he will only take half an hour to explain this. All the Articles in the Constitution of India are amendable, but that does not make them all temporary.

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:12 AM GMT

    Gopal Sankaranarayanan : Any link between the State and the Union is snapped when Article 370 is done away with.



  • 23 Jan 2020 9:06 AM GMT

    GS : Any order for amendment which happened without being tabled before the CA would be meaningless.

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:05 AM GMT

    GS : The CA was a body of representatives which came into being in 1951 and was dissolved in 1957. Therefore, the applicability of Article 370(3) could have only taken place between 1951 to 1957.

  • 23 Jan 2020 9:03 AM GMT

    Gopal Sankaranarayanan : Article 370(3) categorically states that the recommendation of the CA is required in order to table any changes in the Article itself. In other words, the existence of the CA is pertinent for any sort of amendment/modification to be made.

  • 23 Jan 2020 8:54 AM GMT

    C U Singh : While there exists a minuscule difference between the two judgements of PN Kaul and Prakash, however it in no manner warrants the reference to a larger Bench.

  • 23 Jan 2020 8:53 AM GMT

    Bench re-assembles.

    Senior Advocate C U Singh :I completely agree with the arguments that my learned friend has stated (Sr. Adv. Rajeev Dhawan) about how there is no need for a reference. But, I want to add a bit to it.

Next Story