Sibal: This is a political decision. Not a constitutional decision.
CJI: But then the question is whether the constitution does or does not entrust that authority.
Sibal: That's all I'm asking
CJI: So you cannot envisage a Brexit type referendum. That's a political decision which was taken by the then government. But within a constitution like ours, there is no question of a referendum.
CJI: In a constitutional democracy, seeking the opinion of people has to be through established institutions. So long as democracy exists, any recourse of will of people has to be expressed by established constitution.
Sibal: Your lordships must remember Brexit. What happened? There was no constitutional provision seeking a referendum. But when you want to sever a relationship, you must seek the opinion of the people. Because people are central to the decision
SC: Is it your case that the parliament could have done it?
Sibal: No! Not at all. That also I'll answer. Ultimately, this was a political decision taken in the context of the situation prevailing. Right? And the complete abrogation must also be a political decision.
Sibal: Parliament accorded approval to executive acts which unilaterally changed the constitution as it was applicable to J&K. Could the UOI have done it?
Justice Kaul: You say this is an executive act?
Sibal: 356 is executive. 367 definition is executive. Parliament came to the picture when changes had already been done through executive acts. We're challenging that.
Sibal: Including getting rid of the special status given acceded to by the GOI and the parliament in enacting 370 of the Constitution.
Sibal: An executive act of the Union of India cannot alter unilaterally provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State of J&K.
Sibal: 370 talks about IoA and items in concurrent list. But it doesn't talk about List 2 which is the residuary powers of the State.