CJI: Should we not permit parliament to postulate that for a certain period, in interest of the preservation of the nation itself, we want for a certain period that this particular state shall go in fold of UT- on the clear understanding that this shall revert back to a state.
CJI: Can a union not do that for a certain period, to bring stability? Because let's face it, whether it's a state or UT, all of us survive if a nation survives.
CJI: Why was it not possible for the Union to say that right now in the case of a state, we have such an extreme situation in terms of national security, that we want for a certain period that a UT should be created. But this is not permanent and this shall be back as a state.
CJI: They became UTs but that's in the process of making them into a stable administration to make them states. You can't immediately make them states.
CJI: As we see creation of UTs, you have on one hand, examples like Chandigarh - carved out of Punjab and remained a UT. Then you have a progression where certain areas became UTs in progression of making them states- north east, manipur, Mizoram, tripura.
SG: But here it is nobody's case that we carved out Ladakh to get out of this. We had other reasons.
Justice Kaul: Let's complicate it. Suppose out of Assam, you carve out a UT or you convert Assam to a UT.
SG: It's an extreme example but for purpose of testing, separation would be necessary. One state cannot be declared as UT.
SG: Separation is necessary, that's my reading. That question we're not faced with yet.
Justice Kaul: Carving out Ladakh as a UT is less complicated. Suppose you don't carve out Ladakh as UT- can you say that the J&K state will become as it is in boundaries but it's not a state, it's a UT. When we want it, we'll reconvert it.
Justice Kaul: How do you contemplate converting a state into UT? And if that can't be done can you do that by carving out a UT and making other also a UT?
SG: There is no restriction. For example, Assam, Tripura, Arunachal became UT first and then became states.