Terming Indian Constitution as "Bible", Jung said it was an organic document evolving with time. Interpretations would be followed by amendments with changed context, he said.
"This is also right that when it comes to interpretation there is a difference between how the Constitution is and how it should be. Few people may think there should not be any limitation to the powers of the Lt Governor and the elected Assembly. This may be one idea but that requires Constitutional amendments," he said.
Rejecting suggestions of Delhi being a "special state" or a "half state", Kashyap said that the national capital was administered by the President through the LG and the Union had "overriding" legislative and executive powers over it.
"So technically, Delhi is always under the President's rule... So to say it cannot legislate on three subjects would be wrong. Even if it legislates on state subjects the Parliament's writ would prevail in case there are discrepancies with the Union's law," he said.
Without taking any name, Sharma said that "people in power" were not ready to internalise the fact that their status were not same as in the case of other states.
"Getting 67 seats won't change the fact that any change in the governance structure can be brought only through Constitutional amendments. This was done by the framers to maintain stability," Sharma said.