Channel

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

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.

Senior Advocate Zaffar Ahmad Shah contended that the autonomy of J&K was decimated by the abrogation of Article 370.

Sr. Adv. Gopal Subramanium argued that Article 370 could only be repealed with the concurrence of the J&K Constituent Assembly.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal completed 3 days of arguments on why Parliament had no power to repeal Article 370.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that there was no constitutional mechanism to abrogate Article 370.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued abrogation of Art. 370 cannot be done following the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957.