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

CJI: If there is complete silence in Art 370, then 370 has worked itself out both in relation to clause (1), and in relation to (2) and (3). In which case, there are two options - your line of thinking would be that Constitution of J&K fills the void.

CJI: The second terminal is indicated in Art 370(3) which again refers to recommendation of Constituent Assembly. Interestingly, 370 is silent on what the regime should be once the Constituent Assembly is formed and has taken its decision.

CJI: Can we not read Article 370 and indicating two terminal points? The first terminal point is in clause (2) of Art 370- namely formation of Constituent Assembly for framing the Constitution.

Sankarnarayanan: Kashmir had entered the stadium, was near the finish line to adopt the Constitution. There was an illegitimate assistance given to get it past the finish line which is completely unnecessary.

Sankarnarayanan: For Kashmir, we had a ministry which was headed by Dr Ayyangar. Rest every state was Sardar Patel.

Sankarnarayanan refers to the Madhavrao Scindia judgement.

Sankarnarayanan: My submission is that 370(3) is a one time decision making exercise to be carried out by the Constituent Assembly. If abrogation is to be done, it is to be done once and if it is done, 370 is out of the window.

Sankarnarayanan: But if they did what they did in 1952, and decided to have their own constitution, 370(1)(d) then continues to operate.

Sankarnarayanan refers to the sequence of events.

Sankarnarayanan: Do we not adhere to certain promises that we make which are present in the Constitution on which 5 CBs have weighed in. Or are we going to follow the example of people who put their PMs in jails?

Sankarnarayanan: Effectively, what the Pakistan government has done is to rest direct control and vest it in a council with the Prime Minister. I ask myself, isn't India different? Aren't we a democratic country run by a Constitution?