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

Singh: 1905, Lord Curzon split the province of Bengal. That led to tremendous backlash against the British Raj. In 1911, Lord Harding was compelled to rescind that move.

Singh: This experience led to a declaration by the British parliament to devolve greater power on provinces of India.

Singh: That is what has happened historically. By 4th August, 2019, there were 7 UTs left in India. All other UTs - once they became viable units- it was converted into a state.

CJI: Your argument will be in this way- what is the history of creation of UTs, does that category remain frozen in the sense that you can convert a UT into a state but not a state into a UT?

CJI: Was there a peculiar constitutional history attached to the creation of UTs and does that category remain frozen now?

CJI: Is the conversion of the state into a UT- is it severable from the abrogation of Art 370 itself?

Singh: Yes, the two are seperate.

Singh takes the bench to judgements pertaining to judicial scrutiny required for proclamations imposing President's Rule.

Singh: Because then any party in power at the centre, which also happens to be a party in power in a state, can just convert the state by a simple majority in state legislature and simple majority in parliament.

Singh: The reorganization act apart from 370 is very very important for the people of J&K. If this interpretation of Art 3 is upheld, then it is the thin end of the wedge for democracy and federalism and the country as a whole.

Singh: Part I has to be read conjointly and when you read it conjointly no power is provided under Art 3 to convert a state into a UT notwithstanding the two explanations.

Singh: The argument is that we can interchange states with UTs under Art 3 because of the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment was not applicable to J&K on 5th August 2019.