Sen: I will show that if there is a conscious choice to remain a minority in a region in the backdrop of horrific violence of partition, when there is a constitutional promise in nature of Art 370, it should be strictly construed.
Sen: The region consisted of a Muslim majority. The population had a choice between going into Pakistan or India. Either be a majority in Pakistan or be a minority in India. They chose the latter.
Sr Adv PC Sen: I want to highlight three things in a broad way-
1. Historical
2. Jurisprudential
3. In terms of constitutional ethos.
Parikh: Your lords have asked Mr Sibal, why they resorted to interpretation clause. They did so because they couldn't have changed the article directly. So they did it indirectly.
Senior Advocate Parikh has concluded his arguments.
Parikh: What you cannot do directly, cannot be done indirectly.
Parikh: Recommendation of Constituent Assembly was interchanged by recommendation of parliament.
Parikh: They changed the explanation without the prior recommendation of the Constituent Assembly.
Parikh: They indirectly changed 370 itself.
Parikh: Why did they resort to 92? Why not rely only on 356? The answer is that because after the proclamation, on the next date, he dissolves the assembly by resorting to S 53(2)(b) which could not have been done without aid and advice of council of ministers.
Parikh: 92 acts in a particular sphere and 356 acts in a different sphere altogether. You can reconcile it but they operate in different fields. Once you exercise power under 92 and say we're dissolving...