The Supreme Court continued to hear pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 for the second day. During the proceedings, the court referred to the Constitution as a live document and questioned whether the special provision could be amended if the people of Kashmir desired it. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal insisted that the abrogation could only be done based on the constituent assembly’s recommendation.
The five-judge bench, including CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, deliberated on whether Article 370 had acquired a permanent feature and whether the methodology used for its abrogation was appropriate.
Sibal argued that the President’s rule should not be invoked to undermine democracy, and the legislature did not have the authority to recommend the abrogation of Article 370 according to the J&K Constitution. The court questioned whether the Constitution of J&K could grant permanency to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
CJI Chandrachud inquired about the constitutional mechanism for modifying Article 370 in 2019 and what would have happened if the Maharaja had been replaced by an elected government in J&K.
Overall, the issue regarding the character of Article 370 remained debatable, and the court sought further deliberation on the matter.
Post Your Comments