Heated Argument Between Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General, Article 370 hearing

it is a serious issue what is a serious issue but do you want me to say something that I shouldn't say in court well he wants his fundamental rights to be enforcedure everybody has fundamental rights in this country including those who on the streets you vilify that's why we are here to resolve those issues but all of them have come here in one Spirit which is that they abide by the Integrity cannot be a member of the Lok Sabha and be a member there without abiding by the Constitution and and a north of office that are abide by the Constitution of India there is a speaker of the BJP who was present there when this allegedly happened there are some people who asked him to say something which he did not say why do you want me to go into all this so please go into it but there is not part of the record it has been withdrawn it has been it has been deleted from the record that in all public speeches of petitioner number one he supports separatist elements and other elements let him say he does not support cessationism and terrorism no citizen of this country can have any objection in filing that effect thank you yes foreign what we have said has been said the Chief Justice had to say has been said we've heard both sides I think for 15 days quite patiently maybe maybe not everybody can be heard anything like that don't try to ever don't try ever to provide the court will uh never try that with you I'll go with the chief or with me anybody you try that okay thank you thank you point in order to fix matter yes yes at the outset I wish to State Millers that this case has been argued at several levels and Millers most of them unsolicited without reference to the arguments made by us I don't think anybody on this side challenge the sovereignty of India nobody on this side chatting the sovereignty of India I military the outside stated that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India they say your first first petitioner has said something which are not in sync with I'm not concerned with that if the first position said something if he has said it in what circumstances he says is it recorded you've asked him for an affidavit I have nothing to do with the time let's not let's not take time on that one second let's not take time of that I am not standing for him for what he said if he said it he has sworn to the constitution of India he is a citizen of India how can he how can he say otherwise and if anybody has said it Melody at my level deprecated before your Lordships ask him to file an affidavit then I have nothing to do with it your client you have to article 32 of the Constitution okay therefore necessarily uh abides by and uh he's a member of the Lok Sabha is a citizen one second that's a submission Mr Mr uh civil but we want to have it from him that he unconditionally accepts that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and that he abides and owes Phil abides by knows allegiance to the Constitution Mr Sable because then when you argue and you accept as far as sovereignty is concerned you accept the sovereignty of course number one the people of India number two that jnk is integral part of India when you argue your client says something outside the court something different to it this is probably probably then he's also accepting there was a issue and a problem which had to be dealt with because if I start when it's recounting no I'm not saying unnecessarily lead only minutes to a media coverage let let us not go that route we are arguing a pure constitutional Edition there is a speaker of the BJP who was present there when this allegedly happened there are some people who asked him to say something which he did not say why do you want me to go into all this so please go into it but there is not part of the record it has been withdrawn it has been it has been deleted from the record BJP speaker was there he was asked to say something which people ask other people to say on the streets of this country why do you why do we want to go into this we would insist Melody you must Point therefore we accept of course but unconditionally see it on the basis that he's willing to file an affidavit before our court saying that well he owes Allegiance like every other Indian citizens is a constitution of India and that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral I'm sorry every day it mentions that in all public speeches of petitioner number one he supports separatist elements and other elements let him say he does not support cessationism and terrorism no citizen of this country can have any objection in filing that effects there's another Petition of Justice please allow me to argue we are more than uh Duty bound to here is uh submissions and we were we are in the course of hearing your submissions all that we want to say is like everyone else here because we have had people from across the political Spectrum in Jammu and Kashmir who have presented rival viewpoints before us different perspectives uh which is welcome that's why we are here to resolve those issues but all of them have come here in one Spirit which is that they abide by the Integrity cannot be a member of the Lok Sabha and be a member there without abiding by the Constitution and and a north of office that are abide by the Constitution of India he has to take that oath before he is because he enters the Lok Sabha as we all do that's what it is how can how can that be but these are that no citizen could have any objection in saying that I do not support terrorism and separately let him say that or say that I will not say this is yes yes it's not just on this one it is a serious ly what is the city of issue do you want me to say something that I shouldn't say in court well he wants his fundamental rights to be enforced in this everybody has fundamental rights in this country including those who on the streets you vilify then it's all right then you should apologize for them yes so let's not let's not let me ask me you're watching the meeting I've made a commitment that there will be a definitely open the argument yes please so unless this case has been argued at different levels I was somewhat pained when one Council argued that we respect the sentiments of the people of Jammu and Kashmir but you must also respect our sentiments I I think that we cannot reduce this case to an emotive majoritarian interpretation of the Constitution of India well as all residents in Jammu and Kashmir are citizens of India their admits are part of India as anybody else if historically there is an article of the Constitution that gives them certain rights Millers they are entitled to defend that as a matter of law yes that those rights may be taken away may not be taken away constitutionally or without reference to the Constitution is another matter but to say that you must respect our sentiments as if they are somebody else itself is creating a kind of Chasm that shouldn't be created especially in court that's number one number two millets and I adopt Mr salve's argument that we are concerned with the interpretation of 370. read the text understand the context and interpret 370. I entirely agree with that and that's exactly what I'm going to do before your Lordships number three Malad if you look at the history of India in that in that context well as you will find that Jammu and Kashmir had no links with the rest of India geographically no leaks no part of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir was linked to the rest of India and the two principles on the basis of which accession had to take place was contiguity you have to be contiguous that's harmless States like yunagar Hyderabad many other states which are internally which were within India could never exceed to Pakistan because that principle could not be established so you have to have integrity contiguity and you have to have population these were the two principles and the decision the third was to be taken by the ruler these were the three principles on the basis of which accession took place

Channel: Legal Lab Official

Views: 327,583

Keywords: 5 judge bench, Article 370 hearing, Between, CJI DY Chandrachud, CJI to Mr. Sibal, DY Chandrachud, Hearing on Article 370, Heated Argument, Indian Constitution, J&K Constitution, Kapil sibal, Kashmiri article 370, Legal Lab Official, Solicitor General, Supreme Court, Tough Question, Well said by CJI, article 370, article 370 hearing in supreme court, kapil sibal, live law, supreme court, supreme court live, supreme court of india

Id: HIBe3QwQ7i0

Length: 12min 2sec (722 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 04 2023