Sankarnarayanan refers to an earlier attempt of the Indian Parliament to abrogate Article 370.
He reads from the extract of Gulzarilal Nanda.
Sankarnarayanan: The J&K Constitution refers to the Constitution of India. All the COs refers to Constitution of J&K. So there is a bridge. Acknowledgement is there even in correspondence.
CJI: The idea was to gradually bring J&K in mainstream...
Sankarnarayanan: Which is thankfully what has happened.
CJI: Does that mean that anything said by the Constituent Assembly of J&K would bind the parliament?
GS: For simple reason that when the Indian constitution specifically recognises a Constituent Assembly for only one state in the country and says that Constituent Assembly has the task of deciding to abrogate the clause or not, the CA and it's task is constitutionally recognised
CJI: Though the Constitution of J&K framed its relationship with the UOI, unless that relationship is embodied in the Indian Constitution, how will it bind the dominion of India or parliament and the executive?
CJI: Is there not intrinsic evidence that 370 itself is self limiting once the Constituent Assembly has come to an end? Then do we say that our constitution must be so read to see the Constitution of J&K as an overriding doc which we'll apply in preference to our Constitution?
CJI: If 370 works itself out...
Sankarnarayanan: If it works itself out, it can't be touched.
CJI: If a text itself shows its self limiting character, the whole operation of 370 has to come to an end once the Constituent Assembly comes to an end.
CJI: If the terminal point of 370 is the Constituent Assembly's work, then is it not necessary that the work of the Constituent Assembly of the state of J&K has to be embodied in this constitution to make it operational?
Sankarnarayanan: It's not necessary because it's not provided for in the Constitution.
CJI: The other view possibly is can the Constitution of a federated unit ever rise above the source of the federating unit?