Who can recommend revocation of Art 370 when no constituent assembly exists in J-K, asks SC

economictimes.indiatimes.com:

constituent assembly exists there? The Supreme Court Wednesday put this question to the petitioners who have challenged the abrogation of the constitutional provision that bestowed special status on the erstwhile state. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud today commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Centre's August 5, 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370, a move that had come in for vicious attack by some major opposition parties but earned fulsome praise from those supporting the BJP.

The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the lead counsel for the petitioners, as to how can a provision (Article 370), which was specifically mentioned as a temporary provision in the Constitution, become permanent after tenure of the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly came to an end in 1957. The top court referred to proviso 3 of Article 370 which says, «Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify, provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.» The CJI asked Sibal, «What happens when the tenure of constituent assembly comes to an end? No constituent assembly can have an indefinite life.