Thread by @barandbench

Article 370: Day 2 of the hearing on the petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 to begin shortly.

#SupremeCourt
#Article370
#Kashmir

Read all updates from Day 1 here - Challenge to abrogation of Article 370: Live Updates from the hearing in Supreme Court
barandbench.com/challenge-to-a…

Constitution Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant assembles.

#Article370
#Kashmir
#SupremeCourt

Senior Counsel Raju Ramachandran representing Former IAS officer Shah Faesal, Shehla Rashid, and others resumes his submissions

#Article370
#Kashmir
#SupremeCourt
@shahfaesal
@Shehla_Rashid

Before the Court rose yesterday, AG KK Venugopal had raised objection against Ramachandran's submission (which is also stated in the petition) that the J&K Reorganization Bill was circulated only after introduction.

Ramachandran to address the Court on that point

Ramachandran says that what was said in the Court was understood incorrectly.

Ramachandran explains there was Constitutional non compliance where expression of view on a Bill has happened without that Bill having been shown to the members.

#Article370
#Kashmir

Ramachandran cites Article 3 of the Constitution of India and adds that the Bill was passed without the MPs getting a chance to read the Bill.

Ramachandran explains that the Parliamentary proceedings are not sought to be challenged here.

Ramachandran further clarifies that the Bill he referred to was the resolution of Lok Sabha passed on August 5 which approved the J&K Reorganization Bill. He was not referring to the passage of the Reorganization Bill itself.

#Kashmir
#Article370

It was this Bill that was passed in haste without affording a chance go the MPs to read the Bill.

Court observes that both AG and Ramachandran are not factually incorrect and were referring to different perspectives.

Ramachandran proceeds with his arguments.

"The violation of Constitution of J&K was done and its status was altered when the State was under President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India."

#Kashmir
#Article370
#SupremeCourt

Ramana J: The sum and substance of your argument is that under Article 356 cover, the Governor or President cannot permanently alter.

Ramachandran: Yes. An irreversible change...

Kaul J: On a lighter note, the only relief for you is Judical reversal now?

#Article370
#Kashmir

Ramachandran cites the SR Bommai judgment on the issue of the purpose of Article 356. Highlighting the same, Ramachandran says the purpose of Article 356 is to "maintain the Constitution"

#Article370
#Kashm

Ramachandran: It should eb ensured that only those actions must be carried for the purpose of which A.356 is invoked. By making an irreversible change, they have travelled beyond the purpose and the Court's intervention becomes necessary.

#Article370
#Kashmir
#SupremeCourt

Ramachandran: Proclamation under A.356 is for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the Constitution; in J&K's case it was for preservation of the Constitution of India and that of J&K. They used the provision for preservation of Constitution of J&K to do away with it.

Justice Kaul: So according to you, the primary question is whether Parliament can make these changes

Justice Ramana: You are saying that the Parliament cannot make these changes without the consultation of the State and under A.356?

Ramchandran: Irreversible changes, yes.

Ramachandran: It is an irrational exercise of power to abrogate the Constitution of J&K at a time of proclamation under A.356 to meet and counter a situation of breakdown of machinery.

#Kashmir
#Article370
#SupremeCourt

Ramachandran: A 356 is an emergency provision but is different in nature from A. 352 or 360 which are also emergency provisions. This power (u/A 356) should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.

#Kashmir
#Article370
#SupremeCourt

Ramachandran: A.356 should be exercised to uphold both the Constitutions simultaneously, that of J&K and of India; but not to do away with one of them while upholding the other

#Article370
#Kashmir
#SupremeCourt

Ramachandran citing the judgment in Ramachandran case

Ramachandran now arguing on the point of dual capacity held by an individual and in the given case, Governor, who is the agent of the President, giving concurrence for Presidential Orders

#Kashmir
#Article370
#SupremeCourt

Ramachandran says that a Governor in a non A.356 imposed State would act on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers.

Justice Ramana: You are going back to the first argument. We understand your first argument

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: Whatever be the power of the Governor otherwise, the power of concurrence for Constitutional change cannot be part of any other capacity of Governor who doesn't have council of Ministers.

#Article370
#Kashmir

Justice Ramana: Then who will do this if not Governor when there is no Council of Ministers?

Ramachandran: It is not to be done in this period (during imposition of President's Rule u/A 356). This is temporary phase. It is not to be done during this time

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: The purported concurrence of the State govt given through the Governor without the aid and advice of a Council of Ministers is undemocratic for want of a concurrence from a popular government. Governor is the agent or delegate of President.

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: Various Constitutional fictions and variances created through this route of a temporary phase of President's rule cannot be used to bring about an irreversible change in the nature od relation between the State and the Union.

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: The agent or delegate of the President is giving consent back to the President. This brings a major Constitutional change of making an Assembly a Constituent body. This concurrence is given in the context of A.370(1)(d)

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: The basic structure doctrine should apply on the grounds of
1. Federalism - it changes the federal structure
2. Democracy - it is done through an executive action
3. Rule of law - there is flagrant violation and bypassing of Constitutionally prescribed provision

Bench rises for lunch. Hearing to continue at 2 PM.

Bench assembles for the post lunch session.

Senior Counsel Raju Ramachandran resumes his submissions

Ramachandran says that C.O. 272 is unconstitutional because President’s power under A.370(I)(d) is not a constituent power but is merely a power to apply provisions with modifications and exceptions under A.370(I)(d)

C.O. 272 is the Presidential Order of August 5.

Ramachandran on Cessation of A.370: A Presidential order to this effect could be issued only if the proposal for the same emanated from the Constituent Assembly or its successor in law

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: The right to make such a proposal for abrogation of A370 was exclusively with the Constituent Assembly. If Cosntituent Assembly to be substituted by legislative assembly, the right to make proposal cannot be transferred to the President.

#Kashmir
#Article370

Justice Kant: A question arises that who is the competent authority to reconstitute the Constituent Assembly.

Ramachandran: For the petitioners, the only burden is to show that the current route is unconstitutional.

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: The true sovereign is the people. Any other alternative where the voice of the people is absent cannot be said to be right

#Kashmir
#Article370
#SupremeCourt

Ramachandran: The power to suggest an alteration in the nature of relationship between a State and the Union is a constituent power. This is expressly limited under A. 147 and impliedly limited under principles of democracy and federalism.

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: The recommendation made by the Parliament on behalf of J&K's Cosntituent Assembly is undemocratic for want of the will of the people and for want of public reason

#Kashmir
#Article370

Ramachandran: We can redraw the boundaries of a State but the status of a State cannot be diminished to that of Union Territories.

Ramachandran cites the example of bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into two States.

#Kashmir
#Article370
#Telangana

Justice Kaul, summarising Ramachandran's argument:

So there are two aspects, one of changing boundaries, another of bifurcation. You are saying that the Parliament cannot extinguish the character of a State and make it a UT.

Justice Kaul: By retaining the status of a State, can a separate Union Territory be carved out of it? For example if J&K were to remain a State, could a separate Ladakh UT be carved out?

Ramachandran: Conceivably yes

#Kashmir
#Article370
#Ladakh

Ramachandran citing the judgement in Lakhan Pal case

#Kashmir
#Article370

Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow