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

SG Mehta: Other provisions would mean other than (b)

SG Mehta: The difficulty is that then even the 368 route, which is suggested, cannot be taken. If that is the meaning given, that 370 remains unalterable, it becomes permanent.

SG: What will be the impact of this interpretation? I'll show that. In absence of a constituent assembly, which can never be modified, Art 370(3) can never come into effect and 370 gets the status of a permanent provision. Please read it in totality.

CJI: This is the heart of the matter.

CJI: 370(1)(d) refers to "other provisions of the Constitution". Other provisions according to you would include 367. Possible. But can you use 367 to bring about an amendment to 370? If you do that, are you not really doing that to amend 370 itself?

CJI: The argument of the other side is that you can then take recourse to sub-clause (d) of clause (1) in a situation where you have to amend any other provision of the Constitution other than Article 370.

SG Mehta: It doesn't say so.

SG: I understand but that would have an effect on the Article being permanent because then 370 can never be modified.

Justice Khanna: The question is that by amending Art 367, aren't you in fact amending Art 370 without taking recourse to 370(3)? Because Art 370 can only be amended in terms of Art 370(3).

SG: Not amend. 367 is explanation. It may have an effect of amendment.

CJI: Whether you call it an explanation or an amendment- the amendment to 367 had the consequence of reading the words 'Legislative Assembly' instead of 'Constituent Assembly'.

CJI: Can you alter the import of a provision of Article 370 itself by a process other than Article 370(3)? Because what you've done here is that you have used Article 367 to amend the proviso to 370.