“If 370 is beyond the reach of amendment, is it above basic structure?” Court asks Petitioners

Respondents argued that the legitimacy of J&K Constitution came directly from the Indian Constitution

Respondents argued that there is no limit on President’s power to pull plug on special status of J&K

SG Tushar Mehta argued that Jammu & Kashmir has seen rapid development since it was made a Union Territory.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that removing Art. 370 was Union’s way to rectify the mistakes of the past.

The Supreme Court has seen a continuous stream of promising reforms under nine-months of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

DESK BRIEF: A CJI led Constitution Bench has been hearing arguments in one of the most momentous episodes in our political history.

The Constitution Bench heard the Unions opening arguments in support of the abrogation of Article 370.

On Days 8 and 9, 12 counsels appearing for the petitioners in the challenge to Article 370 argued before the Supreme Court.

The abrogation of Article 370 threatens the safeguards acknowledging special arrangements in other states too, writes Anuradha Bhasin.

Senior Advocates Dave, Naphade and Dwivedi highlighted the adverse consequences of the abrogation of Article 370.

Petitioners argued Constitution does not allow the President to permanently abrogate Article 370 when J&K was under President’s Rule.