SC questions contention that power to amend statute ended after Constituent Assembly completed task

economictimes.indiatimes.com:

Supreme Court on Thursday questioned that if Article 370 had served its purpose after the Constituent assembly came to an end, then how does one explain «that there were subsequent amendments to the Constitution» post 1957. Speaking for the five-member Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud verbally questioned the contention of the petitioners that Article 370 had «achieved its life» and therefore could not have been abrogated after dissolution of the Constituent Assembly.

Orally remarking that the while the argument is worth dealing with, the CJI observed that the «internal inconsistency (with the argument raised) is that if it is right then the consequence would be that the constituent assembly completed its task which is belied not merely by constitutional practice. But even by the state government (J&K) and Centre» since several Constitutional orders were issued after 1957.

The CJI verbally questioned the counsel for the petitioners that if the power to amend the Constitution stood exhausted after the Constituent Assembly completed its task «how do you explain the exercise of power (of issuing constitutional orders) for 64 years». The CJI asked the petitioners to explain as to how subsequent constitutional orders were passed in absence of the Constituent Assembly which completed its task in 1957.

The CJI went on to remark that it would be not correct to say that Article 370 worked its way out and achieved its life. Rather, the CJI added, it (Article 370) continued to operate.

He further questioned the petitioners «Where is the power to alter the constitution (of J&K) at all after the constituent assembly… Is there no power to change any provision ?». The development took place