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

Sibal: They don't interpret it. They say that in proviso (3) of 370, the expression Constituent Assembly shall read as Legislative Assembly. So they amended Art 370.

Sibal: Because they themselves gave the power of the legislative assembly which they were exercising in 356 as the Constituent Assembly and recommend. They were ad idem with my interpretation that you need recommendation of Constituent Assembly.

CJI: From their perspective, why was the amendment to 367 necessary at all? In their constitutional design to abrogate 370, why was it crucial to amend 367?

Sibal: We're dealing with exercise of executive power, not constitutional power.

Sibal: In UK, Boris Johnson tried to bypass parliament and requested the queen to prorogue the house. It was prorouged. The SC of UK unanimously held that it couldn't be done. This is much worse than that.

Sibal: So you create a constitutional myth and assume in the absence of council of ministers that there is a council of ministers. Then you pass a presidential order that even in absence of council of ministers the governor is acting on its aid and advice.

Sibal (reads the 2019 Order): "...the governor of J&K acting on advice of council of ministers..." How can that be? There is no council of ministers.

Sibal: The inception of this executive order is constitutionally flawed.

Sibal refers to the speech of MA Beg: He was the representative of J&K in India's Constituent Assembly. He was a part of the Constituent Assembly of India as well.

Sibal: There would have been no Constitution of J&K if 370 was to be abrogated.