On day 11 of the hearings of the Article 370 petitions, the Supreme Court of India will hear the Solicitor General of India who will attempt to defend the Government’s decision to abrogate the special status.
At the onset of the day, Kapil Sibal brought to the notice of the court the suspension of Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, the academic who came to the court and argued for a few minutes- “because he argued what he argued he was suspended from the faculty on 25th August. He took leave for two days, went back, and was suspended,” Kapil SIbal argued.
The Chief Justice of India asked the centre to look into the issue and said that nobody shall be suspended for arguing in the court.
Live updates:
SG Mehta starts arguments: I will show that Jammu Kashmir constitution was subordinate to Indian Constitution.
CJI: You have contended that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu Kashmir was in the nature of a legislative assembly and not a Constituent Assembly. That, strictly speaking, there may be a problem. That would be a problem for two reasons- That’s not how Article 370(2) refers to it as. It refers to it as Constituent Assembly of State. Second, More importantly, once A 238 makes certain provisions of Constitution inapplicable to Part III states, especially Jammu Kashmir, which would be brought into force by the Constituent Assembly framing a Constitution, then it may be difficult to purely call it a legislative assembly.
SG Mehta: Article 370 has continuously evolved depending upon the situation. Earlier the Maharaja ceased to exist, and it became Sadar e Riyasat. Since Constituent Assembly happened to be existing, it was with recommendation.
Mehta continues: I am arguing this case on the behalf of people of Jammu Kashmir. People of Jammu Kashmir were being deprived of lot of things. Under 35A, women who got married were not allowed to posses any property. 35A was not an addition to 35. It was a separate provision created for Jammu Kashmir.
CJI: Article 35A took away some of the basic fundamental rights including CJI: Article 16(1), right to acquire immovable property which was then a fundamental right under 19(1)(f), Artilce 31and settlement in the state which was a fundamental right under 19(1)(e)