SG Mehta: Section 147 even makes these provisions unamendable - sections 3 and 5 cannot be amended.
CJI: In that sense the J&K constitution was always meant to be subservient to India... it's not a document which can be equivalent.
CJI: It's very obvious from S 5 that once constitution of india prescribes a legislative domain for parliament, that is denuded from legislative domain of the J&K legislative assembly.
CJI: Subsequently, the concurrent list was brought in. Then entry 97 was wholly outside purview of parliament. Later on, entry 97 is also gradually brought in...
CJI: We have seen how progressively the ambit of the legislative domain of parliament was expanded. For instance, initially, the entire concurrent list was outside the power of parliament, we only had certain entries in union list.
CJI: So once the constitution of India defines areas in which parliament has power to make laws then that is denuded from the jurisdiction of j&k legislative assembly.
CJI: There is another reason why your argument may be correct- look at S 5 of J&K constitution. It says that the executive and the legislative powers of state extends to all matters except those in respect of which parliament has a power to make laws under Indian Constitution.
SG: Sovereignty would include right to acquire new areas, right to cede territories- which we have in Art 1,2,3,4. None of the attributes of a constitution can be attached to J&K constitution. It was a piece of legislature recognised till 5 August 2019
SG: Constitutions have certain attributes - it must be a document of governance providing for everything. This constitution only has certain aspects, rest they leave it to Constitution of India. For being recognised as a Constitution, you must provide for a kind of sovereignty
CJI: According to you, the role of the Constituent Assembly of J&K is the role created for it by Constitution of India, nothing beyond that.
SG: Yes, it is subservient and subordinate. It never had original Constituent powers.