Sankarnarayanan: How Article 367 is being misused here- everything in 368(2) which needs half states to give consent, they can do by 367! Just say that this provision would read as this.
Sankarnarayanan: That is what they've side stepped. And they've done it in the Constitution which is why it is shocking! This is not some order by the executive. This is a constitutional amendment you bought.
Sankarnarayanan: There is a meeting of minds. There has to be some basic meeting of minds - as with the RBI in the demonitisation case, as between the collegium and the government- that meeting of mind doesn't mean your mind meeting your own mind.
Sankarnarayanan: So similar to 370(3), where action has to be taken by the Constituent Assembly but didn't happen, similarly here, where parliament has to make a law but doesn't make a law, it becomes predicated on the action by one of the instruments
CJI: Article 73(2) etc- these are not temporary provisions. These are provisions which will continue unless varied by any law by the parliament.
Sankarnarayanan: We shouldn't pay too much attention to marginal note of this being temporary because there are many provisions across the Constitution outside of Part XXI which are also temporary in nature.
Sankarnarayanan refers to other "temporary" provisions in the Constitution.
Sankarnarayanan refers to Gulzarilal Nanda's statement.
Sankarnarayanan: The reason is that there is a legitimate way and they know what that way is.
Justice Kaul: You only have to tell if what they did was correct or not. You don't have to give the solution.
Sankarnarayanan: 370(1)(d) was the only way they could have abrogated. What they would have to do is- 1. They would have to get rid of proviso under Art 368.