Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 13]

Senior Advocate Harish Salve has concluded his arguments.

Salve: If the unfortunate circumstances arise that for a defined time, the system of governance changes and a very narrow area of judicial review is permissible- then one is to accept the consequence of 356. That's in the alternative.

Salve: The president may dismiss people, appoint people, create institutions, remove institutions- the governor may do, president may do under 356- those are for those people irreversible. That is why your lordships have said 356 must be very sparingly used, it is draconian.

Salve: Because everything is in one sense is irreversible. Parliament passes the budgets of the states- money spent is irreversible.

Salve: This is no longer res integra. Your lordships have held that up to the stage that parliament approves, don't do anything irreversible. Thereafter you may.

Salve: If we're wrong on this- the 356 test - can a change of permanence be made while 356 regime is going on- it had two answers.

Salve: The nature of the provision is such that if it confers plenary powers in the area of governance and the area of constitutional adjustments- your lordships will give it the widest possible interpretation.

Salve: Today if there are checks and builds to safeguard arrest, criminal trial etc- you may say this is to protect the basic structure but the basic structure is the trilogy of rights. That is not to say that the law was tested on basic structure.

Salve: When a law is made to protect civil liberties- 21 is a part of basic structure, a law made to protect civil liberties is a law aligned with Art 21 and therefore aligned with the basic structure.

CJI: In two judgments though, we have said that a particular law protects the basic structure. Places of worship act, in Ayodhya, we said- that is in pursuance of the basic structure. The second we said that the amendment for delhi- of 239AA was in furtherance of basic structure