Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 12]

SG Mehta: They never wanted 370(3) to die, it's very clear.

SG Mehta: The Constituent Assembly having chosen not to dissolve - left it to the discretion of the president. It could have been done. It would have been defendable. But with a view to ensure that there is democratisation of the action...

J Khanna: So by amending 367 you are not amending 370 as such as procedure under 370 has to be followed to abrogate...Suppose 367 was amended in terms of 370(1)(d) with concurrence of state govt, other side would not have been here.

CJI: So simply put, your argument is that when there was no legislative assembly, the explanation was amended so as to provide that constituent assembly will be treated as legislative assembly...

SG Mehta: There are several exercise of 370(1)(d) when there was a president's rule with concurrence of the governor.

SG Mehta: There are several exercise of 370(1)(d) when there was a president's rule with concurrence of the government.

Justice Khanna: Concurrence of government means council of ministers.

SG Mehta: Council of ministers, if it is there. Otherwise the powers are to be exercised by the governor.

SG: This is also with concurrence. The only difference is that the concurrence is of the governor because governor steps into the shoes of the government.

SG Mehta: Through the 367 mechanism, 370 has been modified.

CJI: That's the point with the caveat that the use of 367 mechanism to modify mechanism was always with the concurrence.

Justice Khanna: Could the legislative assembly make a recommendation in terms of 370(1)(d) saying that under 367 you equate constitutent assembly to legislative assembly.

SG Mehta: Let me give it a thought and respond to that