During the latest developments in the Article 370 abrogation case, Constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, engaged in an intellectually stimulating exchange. The central query revolved around whether the Union Government could utilize Article 367 to amend Article 370.

Article 370(3) dictates that the President's decree to render Article 370 void necessitates the J&K Constituent Assembly's recommendation, which ceased to exist in 1957. Seeking a way around this, the Union explored amending Article 370(3) through Article 367, which deals with interpretation clauses. This route was taken via a Presidential Order in 2019, altering definitions like "Constituent Assembly" and "Government of J&K."

The crux of the debate was whether this Article 367 alteration effectively amended Article 370. Opponents contended that this approach allowed the Executive to alter meanings by amending Article 367, bypassing the Article 368 process mandating majority state assemblies' approval for critical constitutional changes. Chief Justice Chandrachud probed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on whether Article 370's abrogation could occur independently of the Article 367 modification and if an alternative avenue to Article 370(3) existed. Justice Khanna suggested that tweaking Article 367 might implicitly modify Article 370.

Mehta argued that without this Article 367 revision, Article 370 would become a permanent fixture due to the defunct Constituent Assembly. The bench dissected whether such a change through Article 367 was valid. 

Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified the mechanics of the Article 367 method, and Mehta emphasized that it was carried out with the Governor's agreement, given the absence of the council of ministers. Justice Khanna noted that altering Article 367 wouldn't directly amend Article 370, as Article 370(1)(d) procedures must be adhered to for abrogation. Mehta highlighted that the Constituent Assembly's choices influenced the approach, aiming to uphold a democratic process.