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

Dhavan: It says follow the IoA as far as consultation is concerned. And for the rest, concurrence is necessary.

Dhavan: So what remains is 370(1) not to be read as a statute but to be read in context.

Dhavan: CO 44 was the only time in 1952 when 370(3) was used. And now it was used in CO 273.

Dhavan: They have invoked this in CO 273. All of a sudden a provision which is constitutionally beyond the extension of the assembly has suddenly been used in CO 273.

Dhavan: It is temporary to the extent that 370 indicates. Therefore, 370(2) and (3) which deal with the Constituent Assembly, have become obtuse.

Dhavan: Your lordships need to go to Premnath Kaul because it explains what was the situation like after 1950- when there was an IoA but no merger agreement.

Dhavan: What was lost on 4th August, your lordships had asked. This is what was lost- and they didn't even use the amendment power, which is the only power which is available to be them- the power to delete 370.

Dhavan: This deliberative exercise has not taken place with changes of J&K constitution. Mr Sibal had a number of questions asked in parliament last day- are you changing 370? The answer was no, no, no. And suddenly this happened.

Dhavan (reads NCT v UOI): "If the moral values of the constitution are not upheld at every stage, the text of the Constitution may not be enough to protect the democratic values."

Dhavan: When this hearing began, it appeared to me that we were reading a Constitution as if it was a statute. We went to this word and that word- that is not how a constitution is meant to be read or transformed.