The Govt would step back on its attempts to create a new J&K after the Supreme Court's Article 370 ruling: LG Sinha
The Govt would step back on its attempts to create a new J&K after the Supreme Court's Article 370 ruling: LG Sinha
Advertisement

17 August, New Delhi: Thursday, senior attorney Dushyant Dave argued before the Supreme Court that the process of rescinding Article 370 constitutes a “fraud” on the Constitution because it ran “completely contrary” to the Constitution’s provisions.

He stressed that any authority the President or Parliament may wield must be done so in accordance with the Constitution. David claimed that Article 370(3) could not be abrogated by either the President or Parliament because “constitutional sense or constitutional provisions prohibited both.”

Advertisement

He cited his written remarks during the hearing, in which he made use of passages from the Bharatiya Janata Party’s electoral programme. Therein, they made it clear that they want to push for the repeal of Article 370… These proclamations are prohibited from being in conflict with the Constitution. Dave informed the 5-judge Constitution Bench that in 2015 the EC issued guidelines stating that all manifestos must be within the constitutional scheme and spirit.

He claimed the Central Government had renounced Article 370 in order to strengthen its political position. You have done this for no good reason. These claims of stifling progress, etc., are completely irrelevant. It’s not real. He continued, saying, “The only reason you have done it is because you told the people of India to vote for you on the promise that I will go and abrogate Article 370.” This is an example of authority being used for shady reasons and “irrelevant considerations,” he said.

Dave argued that Article 370(3) does not provide anyone the authority to nullify Article 370. It has accomplished what it set out to do. No longer can you use it for physical training,” he continued.

Jammu and Kashmir has always been an inseparable part of India, he continued, despite the widespread misconception that it is not because of Article 370 of the Constitution.

Dave insisted over and over that the method used by the Centre to void Article 370 constituted “fraud,” and that Parliament’s use of its authority was “colourable.”

As of August 2, a group of petitions contesting the nullification of Article 370 of the Constitution have being heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.

Advertisement

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here