AG: But if there is something that you have to negotiate, even with the breach of fundamental values what do we do? Is it a political question or a judicial question?
AG: How do we have a mathematical formula saying this is how you'll do it in the context of internal disturbance, or this is how you'll do it in the context of external aggression? You have some broad standards where fundamental values aren't breached.
AG: I do not know whether these questions can be answered through a mathematical formula.
AG: It's not about ends justifying the means. It's about taking stock of very complex situations. Do we have a mathematical formula of doing it? Or do we only measure it by saying that there are constitutional mandates- if you disobey them you cannot do anything regarding A 370?
AG: If the doctrine of impossibility stands in your way, you're not paralysed.
AG: But the president doesn't adopt that course. She wants to be guided by a process which would approximate to the non legislative functions of legislative assembly.
AG: There is a void, there is an impossibility of complying with the proviso of clause (3) and how to tackle that void? The president could have said that without taking recourse to any other action, i could myself render 370 inoperative.
AG: The other is that you follow the precedents followed by the President earlier while taking recourse to Article 367 and recourse to Article 370(1)(d).
AG: In two occasions the president has done that earlier. I'll show that.
AG: One possibility is that maybe it is extreme to say that because the Constituent Assembly doesn't exist, the proviso dissolves. Suppose we don't want to go through that, the president says I'm free to exercise my power.
AG: The presumption against absurdity is to avoid an impossible result, it will avoid an unworkable and impractical result, it will also avoid an anomalous and illogical result, and it will avoid a futile or pointless result.