Article 370 Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 3]

Justice Khanna: Interpretation clause cannot be amended?

Sibal: No, by interpretation, you cannot amend 370. You cannot substitute Constituent Assembly. What you can't do directly, you can't do indirectly.

Justice Khanna: Under clause (d) of 370(1), the President can make modifications...in order to make these modifications, what would be the procedure?

Sibal: That's an interpretation clause, that's not a clause to amend constitution

CJI: You're right, therefore the government has no power to amend 370 by itself.

Sibal: You cannot change the scheme of 370, forget abrogating.

CJI: But 370 itself postulates that it can be abrogated.

Sibal: But they couldn't do that because clause (1) relates to IoA and concurrent list.

Justice Khanna: Clause (d) is wider.

CJI: One stand arises out of exercise of power under 356. Under 356, you have no power to amend constitution. 370 is a provision exclusively in operation of J &K. So the power they exercised was the power under clause (d) of 370(1).

Sibal: Just to set the record right, the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act 2006- applicable. They were named differently. Let's not get into it.

SG: After 2019 excercise approximately 1200 laws are now applicable...all beneficial legislations available to other citizens now are available to J&K. Prevention of Corruption Act wasn't applicable. RTE wasn't applicable.

Sibal: It was! Prevention of Corruption was applicable.

Sibal: Except for land laws and personal laws, most Indian laws are applicable there in any case. So there was no need for any of this, except for the objective of sending a political message that we have done away with 370.

SG: Parliament doesn't discuss what goes on in courts...he has a freedom of expression.

Sibal: ofcourse, absolutely.

Sibal: As it is now one of your esteemed colleagues has said that in fact basic structure theory is also doubtful.

CJI: Mr Sibal, when you refer to a colleague, you have to refer to a sitting colleague. Once we cease to be judges, they're opinions, not binding facts.