Sibal: They cannot possibly justify it. Unless a new jurisprudence comes to light that they can do whatever they like as long as they have majority.
Sibal: See the consequence of this- that through an executive order, you can change any provisions of the Constitution. Because you have majority. This majoritarian culture cannot destroy the edifice of what our forefathers gave us.
CJI: I think the proceeded on a hypothesis that consultation with Constituent Assembly was necessary. So they said that now we'll replace it with legislative assembly.
CJI: I think the proceeded on a hypothesis that consultation with Constituent Assembly was necessary. So they said that now we'll replace it with legislative assembly.
CJI: 356 power is the power of state legislature and state executive...assume that we disregard 367 amendment- even then, does it affect...
Sibal: That's a separate issue. I'll come to it.
CJI: Suppose we disregard the 367 amendment?
Sibal: Then you can't exercise under 356 at all. It'll be a dead letter. You can't amend constitution. Parliament can.
Sibal: 356 power cannot be exercised by parliament, govt, president in this fashion independent of 367. Because you're only acting as legislature. You have no power as executive. Executive is only dealing with administration, it can't amend
CJI: So they abrogate. Then they'd have to go to parliament to pass a resolution. Why was amending 367 necessary?
CJI: So once proclamation under 356 was issued- all powers vested in the executive of J&K were transferred to govt. All powers of state legislature were vested in parliament. Then if 370(3) is capable of the interpretation, just as hypothesis, that power of abrogate is with Pres
CJI: Suppose for a moment, they had not amended 367, suppose we are operating purely within the fold of 356- once a proclamation takes place under 356, two things follow. One, president gets all powers of state. Two, power of state legislature is subsumed in parliament.