Kumar: What is the problem they've suffered because of S 6 of J&K constitution and Article 35A of Indian Constitution as applicable to J&K? 6 purported to set out who permanent residents are. 35A said that permanent residents will get certain benefits.
Kumar: For example, the intervenors are probably the first victims of the problems which took place during partition...these persons were displaced from force of circumstances.
Kumar: The reason why I make this submission is that whether it be these intervening applicants or any others...they represent a cross section of people from J&K who have suffered discrimination and loss of rights.
Kumar: The rights perspective is the decisive factor in determining the tenability of the challenge mounted by the petitioner. The rights perspective will trump all allegations of procedural infirmities.
Sr Adv Gurukrishna Kumar: I appear in an IA. The applicants are persons displaced from that portion of J&K which is now called Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani concludes his arguments.
Jethmalani: All that the amendment to 367 did was to recognise an implicit provision. It was not only synonymous but also its successor. CO 272 did not make a substantive change. It made a clarificatory change which was already implicit.
Jethmalani: I agree but the alternative conclusion would be that you could never abrogate Article 370.
CJI: The only difference is that legislature which exercises the power of amendment is not a constituent assembly, it is exercising a constituent power.
Jethmalani: This was deleted because after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the constituent power in J&K was now the legislative assembly. The power of amendment under Art 368 is in virtue of constituent power.