Reject the arguments that Amendments to Article 370 It was a constitution scam The center on Thursday told the Supreme Court that “due process was followed” in carrying out the operation in August 2019.
“All the arguments about fraud in the Constitution are completely wrong… There is no deviation from due process,” Attorney General R Venkataramani told a five-judge constitutional panel chaired by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachod.
“I have looked at all the presidential advertisements… 120 of them, especially in the context of Jammu and Kashmir. The suspension of the provisions of Article 3 and the two conditions and various other provisions is in terms of the agreement that the Presidential Proclamation follows. “No deviation has been made with respect to this particular presidential proclamation,” the Attorney General told the bench, which also includes Justices SK Cole, Sanjeev Khanna, PR Gavai and Surya Kant.
The Attorney General told the court that the main theme of his arguments would be about balancing the loss of the nation with the preservation of the constitution – and that “equally, one cannot assume a position where the end justifies the means” and “the means must also be consistent with the end”. end”.
Appearing on behalf of the Center and the administration of Jammu and Kashmir, the Advocate General Tushar Mehta told the court that Jammu and Kashmir had handed over its entire sovereignty to the Union of India upon accession, and that the petitioners were “confusing internal sovereignty with self-government”.
He said, “(As for) external sovereignty, no one can argue that it is with the union of India… internal sovereignty in the facts of our case, and in the constitutional structure we have accepted, means the self-government of the federal units and what self-government exists with each state.”
“It is, in fact, in every institution – as if we were the independent authority to decide a constitutional issue,” noted the International Commission on Justice. But we cannot say that internal sovereignty devolves on us. We are an independent, self-governing institution under the Constitution.”
Mehta cited the declaration made by Karan Singh (son of the then ruler of Kashmir Hari Singh) on 25 November 1949, to support his argument that sovereignty had been ceded entirely to the Indian Union.
He noted that the proclamation states that the Government of India Act 1935, which until then governed the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India, shall be repealed. He stated that “the Constitution of India which will soon be adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India shall, in so far as it applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, govern the constitutional relationship between this State and the intended Union of India, and shall be applied in this State by me, my heirs and successors in accordance with the content of its provisions” and “the provisions of The said Constitution, as of the date of its entry into force, supersedes and supersedes all other constitutional provisions which are inconsistent with it and which are currently in force in this State.”
“This goes beyond any instrument of accession (IoA) or merger. It means accepting the sovereignty of our constitution and handing over the sovereignty to the constitution, where the sovereignty is ‘we the people of India’,” Mehta told the court.
The session will resume on the second of August.
CJI noted that this proclamation came “on the same day that BR Ambedkar delivered his last address to the Constituent Assembly…. By this time, the entire constitution, including 370, had been drafted. Therefore, when he makes this proclamation, he makes it In light of 370, which is also before him. There can be no doubt about it.”
Mehta said, “The Constituent Assembly that was formed for Jammu and Kashmir later on was not a General Constituent Assembly like the way we had our Constituent Assembly because by that time the sovereignty had already merged. There can be no two constitutions. It is therefore the sanctity of that document which We call it the constitution is nothing more than a legislative act.
This, he said, reinforces the point that the words “Constituent Assembly” in Article 370 (3) can only be read as “Legislative Assembly”…”
But Judge Khanna said this needed further clarification.
Full list of winners of the 69th National Film Awards 2023: Rocketry, Alia Bhatt, Kriti Sanon, Allu Arjun win big
69th National Film Awards 2023 Live Updates: Rocketry, Allu Arjun, Alia Bhatt, Kriti Sanon Take Top Honors
CJI also said that “at the end when you argue that this is not a Constituent Assembly but a Legislative Assembly in its original form, you will have to answer how this is compatible with clause (2) of Article 370, which specifically provides for the formation of the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of drafting the Constitution of Jammu And Kashmir, because there is a textual answer that may conflict with your line of approach.”
The seat said it expected Mehta to answer these queries as he moved forward with his arguments.
Mehta agreed, and said it would also explain “how Section 370 works until 2018” and that “some things are really shocking”.