Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 5]

Shah: When that is protected- for several reasons. One could be for protection of jobs and properties. Second also could be that people who live here should have some rights and privileges.

Shah: The king would get people from Punjab and other areas. So they said they need jobs and agitated. That resulted in a notification of 1927. It restricted appointment to permanent residents.

Shah: Interestingly, at that point of time, an agitation was raised by a community. Unfortunately they left us. And we owe a lot to that community because we were taught by them. They agitated because they were the educated class.

Shah: We are protecting the individuals who live in the State of J&K as permanent residents. That is protected. It was protected earlier also in terms of the notification of 1927.

Shah: I still have the constitutional autonomy, maybe little. Maybe it's a skeleton as Justice Kaul said. But somebody felt that the skeleton was disturbing him. Therefore, he got it off.

Shah: We are only claiming the constitutional autonomy which was taken from us. How do we get that back? By demonstrating to this court what we had.

Shah: The 1954 order placed an embargo on it, that till the state legislature would recommend from changing the name, you cannot do so.

Shah: For every kind of legislation, concurrence has been taken.

Shah: What about the constitutional provisions for which concurrence is required and the President is to apply it with modifications after concurrence. Whether such a provision also exists for other states?

CJI: Our notions of parliamentary exclusion from states has been an evolving exercise. But one thing is clear, sovereignty was ceded completely to UOI.