The Supreme Court said on Thursday it would only consider whether there were violations of the constitution and would not consider whether the decision was in the national interest while hearing a series of petitions. challenge the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution.
On the seventh day of a day-long hearing before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, told Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave: "You want judicial review for an assessment. What is the government's intention to repeal Section 370? Judicial review would be for a constitutional violation. Surely if there was such a violation, this court would intervene, but did you ask for our review. Judicially the wisdom behind the decision to repeal 370? »
Dave in his comments said: "You can't use some sort of executive power, give the president power to do it, take away anything that season 3 has to offer under the guise of 356 power. It disregards the guarantees of the constitution." We know what the majority can do. We've all seen what happened in 1975. If they don't do it in writing and in spirit, your lords can undo it and you must.”
In this regard, the CJI said: "If 370 achieved its goal after the end of the constitutional parliament, then why did the constitutional imperatives apply after 1957? But the reality is that 370 was achieved. its target was denied by subsequent constitutional imperatives, so 370 continued to exist."
CJI added: "If your argument regarding Article 3 is true, then once the Constituent Assembly has completed its mandate in 1957, it is no longer possible to amend the constitution, hence the very practice. The Constitution proves it. Amendments to the constitution happened and continued to pass until 2019. If you say 370(1) continues to exist, then you cannot say 370(3) ceases to exist. Either all exist together or all perish together. We are talking about a practice that has been followed for 64 years."
Dave replied: "With all due respect, you can repeal it after 64 years. What should have been agreed upon, was the question. There is a story that Jammu and Kashmir are not part of the country. India due to Section 370 and that is completely incorrect. J&K has always been an integral part of India. Even Jawaharlal Nehru rejected this account."
Lead lawyer Shekhar Naphade said: “The existence of a state is part of the basic structure and J&K cannot be an exception to that. So why not abolish Bengal tomorrow? And, by what parameters? India is a Union of Nations. Article 3 must be read with 355. In the event of a machine failure, restore it to normal. You cannot abolish a state. What is the impact on the constitutional structure where everything has been turned upside down? Ladakh is no longer represented in the Rajya Sabha. Therefore, the people of Ladakh are not considered related to the Rajya Sabha."
The hearing is still inconclusive and will continue next Tuesday, August 22.
