Guruswamy: India's first prime minister in a speech in Hindi said that we're a nation whose land of this nation is strewn with blood...that is our constitutional founding.
Guruswamy: I am on the founders constitutional intention. When we think of this country's founding, at the time of partition, 46-49 hours the Assembly was drafting the constitution. We know what was happening in J&K.
Guruswamy: It is a particularly important question because in this case there is not one but two constituent bodies. In many ways it is unique. It poses upon us a seminal constitutional question- can constitution be altered in ways opposed to the founders intention?
Guruswamy: Yesterday, my lords posed a question to Mr Dwivedi - can you look to the statement of a drafter, a member of the constituent assembly, and accord it as being enforceable on the will of the people.
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan concludes her arguments.
Ramakrishnan: Even if J&K flows with milk and honey, the argument that in order to secure the people their rights we have to destroy their statehood- that cannot be counted.
Ramakrishnan: If these two remain on the book, you cannot bring an interpretation that in clause (3) alone, what is in clause (2) becomes different. This is absurdity.
Ramakrishnan: There is a reference to a constituent assembly in 370(2). It refers to a constituent assembly for purpose of framing the constitution. So there is a relationship of identity between the constituent assembly in clauses (2) and (3).
Ramakrishnan: 370(3) says Constituent Assembly referred to in 370(2). 370(2) refers to a Constituent Assembly for purpose of framing the Constitution of State. Now I'm making an argument purely on elementary logic.
Ramakrishnan: What they have done by CO 272, it leads to a semantic absurdity. Please look at Article 370.