Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 6]

Dhavan: Or that the legislature will now be parliament. This process of substitution is subversive to the constitution.

Dhavan: Constitution says that no bill can be introduced. It is a complete bar. We have to understand the limitations of president's rule. And this is an important limitation. Process are conditions which cannot be substituted by saying that governor will now become president.

Dhavan: When Maharashtra was broken, they said you have to refer, whether you like it or not. Likewise, Punjab- you have to refer the bill to the legislature of the state. You can't self refer it to parliament.

Dhavan: There is a power, no doubt. But the exercise of that power is equally fundamental. We cannot wish away the exercise as being purely nominal in nature.

Justice Khanna: There's a difference between existence of power, use of power, and abuse of power. Let's not confuse it.

Dhavan: The conditionality is specific to the legislature of the state- legislature becomes parliament and the governor becomes president. The conditionalities that exist- neither parliament or president can substitute them.

Dhavan: Then to make one further proposition about president's rule- the wider proposition is this- During the president's rule, Art 3&4 and Art 370 cannot be invoked. Why? Because they have conditionalities.

Dhavan (reads Article 3 & 4): It puts in a conditionality - a conditionality emanating from the State itself. Can all this be wiped out?

Dhavan: Article 358 suspends Article 19 during the proclamation, not beyond. This is now- well beyond the period. And the genesis of this is the presidential order. Even if it goes on for one year, it takes away conditionality which cannot be taken away.

Dhavan: If this proclamation is bad, then its extension in July is also bad.