Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 9]

Guruswamy: India's first prime minister in a speech in Hindi said that we're a nation whose land of this nation is strewn with blood...that is our constitutional founding.

Guruswamy: I am on the founders constitutional intention. When we think of this country's founding, at the time of partition, 46-49 hours the Assembly was drafting the constitution. We know what was happening in J&K.

Guruswamy: It is a particularly important question because in this case there is not one but two constituent bodies. In many ways it is unique. It poses upon us a seminal constitutional question- can constitution be altered in ways opposed to the founders intention?

Guruswamy: Yesterday, my lords posed a question to Mr Dwivedi - can you look to the statement of a drafter, a member of the constituent assembly, and accord it as being enforceable on the will of the people.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy commences her arguments.

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan concludes her arguments.

Ramakrishnan: Even if J&K flows with milk and honey, the argument that in order to secure the people their rights we have to destroy their statehood- that cannot be counted.

Ramakrishnan: If these two remain on the book, you cannot bring an interpretation that in clause (3) alone, what is in clause (2) becomes different. This is absurdity.

Ramakrishnan: There is a reference to a constituent assembly in 370(2). It refers to a constituent assembly for purpose of framing the constitution. So there is a relationship of identity between the constituent assembly in clauses (2) and (3).

Ramakrishnan: 370(3) says Constituent Assembly referred to in 370(2). 370(2) refers to a Constituent Assembly for purpose of framing the Constitution of State. Now I'm making an argument purely on elementary logic.

Ramakrishnan: What they have done by CO 272, it leads to a semantic absurdity. Please look at Article 370.