Sibal: He is a member of parliament today. He has sworn to the constitution of India. He is a citizen of India. How can he say otherwise? And if anyone has said it, at my level, I deprecate it.
Sibal: I'm not standing for him or what he said, if he said it.
CJI: Mr Sibal, do we take it that Mr Lone unconditionally accepts the sovereignty of India and that J&K is an integral part of India?
Justice Kaul: They say that your first petitioner (Mohammad Akbar Lone) has said something which is not in sync...
Sibal: I'm not concerned with that. If he has said it, in what circumstances, is it recorded, you ask him for an affidavit.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: At the outset, I wish to state that this case has been argued at several lengths and most of them unsolicited, without reference to the arguments made by us. I don't think anyone on this side challenged the sovereignty of India.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: At the outset, I wish to state that this case has been argued at several lengths and most of them unsolicited, without reference to the arguments made by us. I don't think anyone on this side challenged the sovereignty of India.
The respondents have concluded their arguments.
The bench has reconvened.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal requests to file his response to submissions made by respondents.
SG Mehta: They're longer than the main submissions.
Sibal: You have filed hundreds of documents, I never objected.
Counsel: The violations of rights of those persecuted is so extensive that it has been recognised as a great human rights violation in 2019- violation which is considered international crime in international law, therefore attracts customary international law and jus cogens norm