Sibal: And the decision had to be taken by ruler.
Sibal: Jammu and Kashmir had a constitution of 1939 which had an administrative structure like any other democratic structure except that the Prajasabha was dominated by dogras. All nominees in Prajasabha were dogras.
Sibal: To say that you must respect our sentiments as if they're somebody else itself is creating a kind of chasm it shouldn't be creating.
Sibal: We are concerned with interpretation of 370...if you look at history of India, J&K had no links with India geographically and the two principles on basis of which accession had to take place was contiguity and population.
Sibal: All residents in J&K are citizens of India. If historically there is an article which gives them certain rights, they're entitled to defend that as a matter of law.
Sibal: All residents in J&K are citizens of India. If historically there is an article which gives them certain rights, they're entitled to defend that as a matter of law.
Sibal: I was somewhat pained when one counsel argued that we respect the sentiments of people of J&K but you must also respect our sentiments. We cannot produce this case to an emotive, majoritarian interpretation of constitution of India.
Senior Advocate Sibal commences his rejoinder arguments.
SG: They're also wrong.
Sibal: Then you should apologise for them. Let me argue the case now.
Sibal: What is a serious issue? You want me to say something I shouldn't say in court?
AG: He wants his fundamental rights to be enforced...
Sibal: Everyone has fundamental rights in this country including those who on the streets you vilify.
CJI: Tomorrow, just ask him to file an affidavit.
CJI: But all of them have come in one spirit - which is that they abide by the integrity of India.
Sibal: You cannot be a member of Lok sabha without abiding by the Constitution of India. There is an oath he has taken. There's an affidavit filed there.