AG commences his arguments for the day.
CJI: Right from the inception of the hearing, we have heard this matter in a sort of dispassionate way, the sense of objectivity...we request both sides to maintain it at that level.
Sibal: 5000 people were under house arrest at that time, 144 through state. This court in a judgement has recognised that...internet was shutdown and then they're saying there were no bandhs. How can there be bandhs when people can't even go to hospitals.
SG: On the lighter side, my learned friend says that there are some people under house arrest and therefore there is no bandh. That means the right people are under house arrest.
Sibal: 5000 people! Let's not make a mockery of democracy.
Sibal: This creates a problem. That's why...
SG: Progress never creates problems.
CJI: We have clarified that constitutional challenge will be dealt with on constitutional arguments.
SG: During my assistance on merits, I've never relied on this.
Sibal: The problem is that all this is televised. And all of this is recorded. These facts then come on record. They're a part of public space. People think what a great thing has been done by the government.
CJI: Therefore, we didn't even place the additional affidavit on record as well.
CJI: These are matters where there can be and should be policy differences but that can't affect the constitutional arguments. We place these facts in the perspective of the roadmap to statehood. This isn't a justification and cannot be to constitutional challenge.
Sibal: If these facts come on record, that has...
CJI: To be fair to the SG, what he was saying is that the roadmap to full statehood would take time but right now development work is taking place, some stability has to come, this is not permanent.
CJI: The nature of the development which the government says took place post August 2019, this may not be of relevance to your constitutional challenge and therefore, what they respond to constitutional challenge, that has to be dealt with independently.