Salve: Unsurprisingly, they reserved the power to the president to disapply the article instead of driving on to Article 368. It's a very unusual provision. There is no other equivalent.
Sibal: That philosophy is reflected in (3). That if you want to disapply this political arrangement, if there is a Constituent Assembly consult them, otherwise you can do it. And there also recommendation.
Sibal: Instruments of accession and their interpretation has always been a matter for sovereign. Here the accession being complete, irrevocable, and irreversible - that is clear as per Art 1 and 3. Where it touched the IoA, the president has the last word.
Sibal: One cannot miss the significance of the overlay of principle of international law which is ingrafted in 363- that these are matters primarily for the sovereign.
CJI: You can make exceptions or modifications but if it's matters under IoA, it's only consultation.
CJI: There is a bifurcation. Matters which are referrable to the IoA, are those on which you only require consultation...but matters not specified in IoA- concurrence required.
CJI: We take the matters in the list as they are and then you define what would be the domain of parliament to make law.
CJI: 370(1)(b) doesn't relate to the power related to adaptations, modifications, or exceptions at all. What it says is that of all items in three lists, the power of parliament to make laws is limited by specific matters.
Salve: Why this dichotomy in the first and second proviso? Your lordships will have to reflect over it. That feeds into my point that where it comes to disapplying 370...
Salve: When it comes to instruments of accession and terms of accession, the last word is with the Union. Because IoA requires consultation, not concurrence.