SG Mehta: Here two constitutional provisions were dispensed with by way of a definition clause, unlike interpretation clause. Kindly bear one factor in mind- Article 370(3) has an in-built extinguishing provision. That's the distinction.
SG Mehta: In this case, the court said that any change in the Constitution which brings everyone at par can never be faulted with. Princely states, after formation of Constitution, lost their special privilege and the word 'fraternity' had to be given meaning.
SG Mehta: After the judgement in Madhavrao Scindia, there was a constitutional amendment. Government repealed it. So the route was taken. That came to be challenged and the matter went to be challenged in Raghunath Rao Ganpat Rao v UOI.
SG Mehta: This court allowed that petition and said that so long as these two provisions exist, you cannot take away privy purses by merely changing Art 366 which is the definition clause.
SG Mehta: There were two constitutional provisions- Art 291 and 362 which provided for privy purses. Central govt exercised powers under 366 and deleted the term 'princely states'.
SG Mehta: I will deal with that contention first. This happened first in the case of Madhavrao Scindia - the govt withdrew privy purses.
SG Mehta: If I start with 370, some of the arguments on the other side were that there was an assurance given to princely states as a result of which they joined India and Art 370 is a result of that.
SG Mehta: I will cover only three points now- the interpretation of Art 370, which according to us is the correct interpretation; second, state reorganization act and; third, what are the parameters of powers of legislature during 356.