RR - Irreversible changes took place during the imposition of the President’s Rule. Changes that have no legitimacy.
J. Kaul - What is the relief you’re seeking ? A reversal ?
RR - Indeed. Judicial reversal.
The Constitution was violated and its state was altered with the Reorganisation Bill. All of this took place during the application of Article 356 when the State Legislature had been suspended.
Raju:There was no representation of the will of the people. They had been sidelined. My objective was to show that with the dissolution of the Assembly and the introduction of the Bill, there had been no effective consultation with the people.
J. Ramana - This does not seem to advance the case of the Petitioners.
RR - The purpose of this is to answer to the objections of the AG.
Raju Ramachandran: A resolution was passed in the Parliament on Aug 5 which sought the approval of the Bill. It has be borne in mind that this was approved without the MPs getting an opportunity to even look at the Bill.
RR - I had stated that the events and timeline to portray how the Bill and all the other decisions had been taken in haste and without proper application of mind. This was said to be incorrect. I will take the court through this issue.
Bench assembled
AG said that what he said about the dates and events was incorrect and he wants to address that.