Top
Top Stories

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
12 Dec 2019 5:24 AM GMT
[Live Updates From Supreme Court] Article 370 Hearing- Day 3
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(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?

Supreme Court Constitution Bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishen Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant commenced the hearing of the petitions challenging the Presidential Orders under Article 370 which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Live Updates

  • 12 Dec 2019 7:14 AM GMT

    The relationship between J&K and India under Art. 370 was to remain till the enactment of Consti of J&K. Therefore, it was supposed to be a temporary provision.

    J. Kaul - What do you mean ?

    DD - Prem Nath Kaul states that it is temporary. Sampat Prakash doesn’t.

  • 12 Dec 2019 7:00 AM GMT

    This reference cannot be decided by a Five Judges Bench as there is conflict between two Five Judge Benches

    AIR 1959 SC 749 AND AIR 1070SC 1118

  • 12 Dec 2019 6:52 AM GMT

    Sr. Adv. Rajeev Dhawan - This can be considered at a later point, post the rest of the arguments.

    J. Ramana - The lawyers had to decide this amongst themselves.

  • 12 Dec 2019 6:51 AM GMT

    Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi is arguing now on why the matter should be referred to a larger bench.

  • 12 Dec 2019 6:30 AM GMT

    Conditions of Art. 370(3) had to be satisfied in order to cease the operation of the Article.

  • 12 Dec 2019 6:27 AM GMT

    SBI v. Santosh Gupta which was based on Sampat Prakash case (1968). In the SBI case, SC had held that Art. 370 was not temporary.

  • 12 Dec 2019 6:13 AM GMT

    The difference between Damnoo and the current case exists in the fact that in the former, the interpretative changes involved the replacement of the Sadar-i-Riyasat by the Governor as SIR is a defunct post. But, the Centre has used these supposedly minor interpretative changes to completely change the relations between the Centre and the State.

  • 12 Dec 2019 6:05 AM GMT

    In the current case, the Parliament had made interpretative changes to Art. 367 in order to make changes to Art. 370. Damnoo judgement shows that this cannot be done.

  • 12 Dec 2019 5:26 AM GMT

    Bench assembled

    Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran resumes his submissions

Next Story