Naphade: The question therefore is, if the J&K Constituent Assembly was convened by a sovereign authority, that sovereignty merges into the sovereignty of the Constituent Assembly and it ultimately gets transferred to the Constitution of J&K.
Naphade: The existence of J&K constitution is recognised by the Constitution of India.
Naphade: And the concept of Constituent Assembly is that it has to be a sovereign body. Now there can be Constitution within a Constitution. That is something your lordships have recognised.
Naphade: There is no provision in the constitution of India by which the J&K constitution can be abrogated. The only question is whether through the route of 370(1)(d) this can be achieved. Art 370(1)(d) itself recognises Constituent Assembly.
Naphade: Sections 3 and 5, that is Part II of the Constitution also formed the core.
Naphade: The core is Part V (executive) and Part VI (legislature) of the J&K Constitution.
Naphade: Yuvraj convened the Constituent Assembly. His authority to do so isn't questioned. So thus, J&K Constitution is a constitutional document. My submission is that no matter how widely you interpret the power under 370(1)(d), core of the J&K Constitution was prevailing
The bench has reconvened.
The bench has risen for lunch.
Naphade: You are replacing a fundamental concept of Constituent Assembly with Legislative Assembly. The legislative assembly is a creature or product of Constituent Assembly. So this exercise is not permissible.