Sibal: These are issues that will arise for your lordships consideration - never raised, never decided by this court.
Sibal: Whether on 1st Nov, 2018, a dissolution of assembly could have taken place before the imposition of Article 356?
Sibal: On 19th June, a particular party withdrew support and on 20th June the governor passed this order.
Sibal: Whether a governor of a state decided that I will keep the assembly under suspended animation which is the power of governor alone - without even trying to find out if they can form a government or not.
Sibal: J&K historically represented a very unique relationship unlike princely states- whether that historic relationship can be jettisoned in this manner?
Sibal: It will also be historic because your lordships will have to interpret Article 356 of the Constitution- an Article which seeks to restore democracy and how democracy has been decimated.
Sibal: It is also historic because it took your lordships 5 years to start hearing this case and for 5 years there has been no representative govt in J&K.
Sibal: This is a historic moment in many ways. First, your lordships will analyse why history was crossed out. Whether procedure established by parliament was consistent with what democracy stands for. Whether the will of people of J&K can be silenced?
Sharma: Allow me to argue in the end, it's very important.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Of course.
Adv ML Sharma: Your lordships...
CJI: Mr Sharma, we can anticipate what you'll say. We are not calling this name by any individual name. We are calling it In Re 370. That should solve your issue.