Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 4]

Subramanium: The fetter on parliament is by virtue of 370 and has no direct relation to IoA.

CJI: The reason I asked this was that could it possibly be that the fetter on power of parliament under clause (d) of Article 370(1) was also a limited transitional provision which would operate so long as the IoA held the field as an independent document?

CJI: What would be the status of the IoA after the constitution of J&K was formed.

Subramanium: It's a historical fact.

CJI: Would it be subsumed in the state constitution?

Subramanium: Yes, the constitution itself recognises IoA.

CJI: Would it be correct to say that IoA ceases to exist as an independent document once J&K became the part of India?

CJI: What happened to the IoA after the Constitution of J&K came into being?

Subramanium: After the Constituent Assembly decided to accede, it was ultimately that decision which operated. The IoA was done intially but in that there were reservations & conditions.

Subramanium: What is today abrogated is the parent order of 1954 as amended from time to time.

Subramanium: These modifications were made by bilateralism.

Subramanium: Article 356 was applied saying that the provisions of Constitution in Article 356 would mean provisions of J&K Constitution.

Subramanium: Those orders were with the concurrence with the government. For example, Article 356 was omitted in the 1954 order. It was applied for the first time in 1965 by a CO.

Justice Kaul: Mr Sibal's own argument was that as the orders were issued from time to time, very little remained inside 370. So do you have any examples that when these COs were issued, was there any negative comments from assembly etc?

Subramanium: CO 273 - it abrogates a constitution. That cannot be done.