Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 8]

Singh: The basic concept of India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states- was maintained. Art 2 was maintained as it is.

Singh: Art 1 states that India shall be a union of states. It was amended by 7th amendment when UTs were formed. But Art 1(1) and 1(2) were not amended. UTs were added in 1(3)(b).

Singh: Today there are only 6 UTs if you keep aside J&K. Even Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu have been merged into one in 2020. They've been made into one UT.

Singh: These small non viable territories have remained - which aren't viable as states.

Singh: I deal with the progression of history of UTs in my written submissions. I have set out a chart of how various territories change from Part C state to UTs to full states.

Singh: History of Art 3 and 4 emanating from 1919 and 1935 GOI Act shows that the power to alter boundaries, change names etc was always used to increase self representation and democratic self government. There was no case of retrogration.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Why we're asking you to conclude early because with all the hard work done by your side, we have reached a point of mental saturation, not fatigue. We now have questions to be posed to other side...we will give you a little more time in rejoinder.

The bench rises for lunch.

Singh: The state comes with property, lands, consolidated funds, rights, contracts- it has absolutely sacrosanct powers under Art 73 read with Art 2.

Singh: For Ladakh, and J&K both- the exercise which has been done is one which is outside the purview of Art 3, even if it was rightly done. This is not the scope of Art 3.

Singh: I submit that the conversion of state into a UT, if at all it could be done, could be done only under Art 368 because it clearly impinges on atleast 6-7 provisions. So it would require both special majority and ratification by more that 50%