article 370 ...contd

the strangest defense i heard against discussing repeal
of article 370 goes thus..
      president of of india can modify article 370  but only
      with the consent of state council. this council does not
     exist now . it is prorogued. so no one can ever  change
     article 370.

 to my mind it looks akin to the following situation
 
    a man is allowed to build a road along the boundary
    of his house but he should take a no objection from
    his neighbour. this neighbour dies before the road
    work is started. which means  the poor man can
   never build his road.

the neighbour here was given an opportunity to raise
objection if  he had any. now that he is no more, there
is no question of objections. in other words
this absence of objection is really the consent.

doesnt the same logic apply to article 370 ? when the body
which was supposed to raise objections does not exist,
the very concept of objections does not exist. in other
words it is consent by default.

but the learned expert above argues it is eternal ban.
probably the strangest logic ever.

--- to continue--