The Supreme Court's upholding of constitutional supremacy underscores the delicate balance of power among the judiciary, legislature, and executive in India, emphasizing the need to safeguard the constitution's fundamental principles against potential overreach from any branch, particularly a parliament-backed executive.the chief justice of India BR gawai and justice K vinod chandran struck down some provisions of the tribunals reforms act 2021 so supreme court in that judgement said that the constitutional framework of India does not subscribe to parliamentary sovereignty nor does it vest unqualified supremacy in the judiciary so according to me both are dangerous so the court was deciding a writ petition preferred by the Madras bar association challenging some sections of the tribunal reforms act the two judge bench of the supreme court observed our constitution mandates the supremacy of the constitution the underlying principles embodied in it guide not only the judiciary but also the legislature and the executive while the function of the judiciary is to interpret protect and expand these fundamental principles the legislature and the executive are entrusted with the duty to give effect to them through law and governance in their distinct spheres of action each organ of the state remains bound by a common constitutional obligation respect for and adherence to the supremacy of the constitution it is this shared responsibility that ensures the unity of purpose within the framework of the separation of power the bench said that the Indian constitutional framework does not subscribe to parliamentary sovereignty nor does it vest unqualified supremacy in the judiciary so the supreme court after hearing the contentions of the councils and the defense council upon his remarked the architecture of our constitution is firmly rooted in the principle of the constitutional supremacy the court quoted Dr BR ambedkar no constitutional government can function in any country unless any particular constitutional authority remembers the fact that its authority is limited by the constitution and that if there is any authority created by the constitution which has to decide between that particular authority and any other authority then the decision of that authority shall be binding upon any other organ the form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the constitution the other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the constitution without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution in the above regard the court noted that the fore sighted constitutional vision of Dr BR ambedkar is strikingly evident in the present series of litigations concerning the tribunal system the repeated re enactment of the same provision which have been struck down by the judiciary shows that the form of the administration is being made inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution as Dr BR ambedkar had highlighted the issues raised in the present petitions are now new to the constitutional adjudication the court said that instead of giving effect to the well established principles laid down by the court on the question of the independence and functioning of the tribunal the legislature has chosen to re enact or reintroduce provisions that reopen the same constitutional debate under different enactments and rule so these were the court's observations so I am going to add something something new to the observation of the learned judges so I totally agree with them that the constitution of India is supreme and what is called the doctrine of supremacy of the constitution and no organs be parliament or judiciary or legislatures are allowed to go beyond the provisions of the constitution and yes our constitution is based on the principle of separation of power though we are not strictly adhered to the principle of separation of power which was propounded by the famous French jurist Montesqu we also know that the American constitution is firmly based on the principle of separation of power and we also know that the Americans I mean the patriots fought a fratricidal war with their own mother country and with French support they got their independence so now in India we all know that the constituent assembly was created according to the cabinet mission plan three cabinet ministers arrived to India in 1946 to discuss the Indian leaders on the question of transfer of power and accordingly a constituent assembly was created and its members were indirectly elected by the representative of the state legislatures and state legislatures were created under the government of India act 1935 and in 1947 the British parliament enacted the Indian independence act and India became a dominion I mean dominion means India got independence from Britain and constituent assembly became the provisional parliament as well as the constituent assembly to draft the constitution so they had dual tasks while it was acting as a government of India at that time that constituent assembly was bound by the provisions of the government of India act 1935 but while the assembly was drafting the constitution at that time it had no limitations the constituent assembly was free to draft the constitution according to its choice so BR ambedkar was the main architect of the constitution we all know it now the main question is if the constitution of India is supreme that is undisputed no one can dispute it then the big threat to constitution may come from an omnipotent executive with full backing of parliament that means if a government of India is enjoying full support of the members of Lok Sabha at that time it can do anything I mean the constitution can be amended because after all the amending power of the constitution belongs to the parliament and in exceptional cases the consent of the half of the state legislatures are required and that is mentioned in article 368 so a powerful government having absolute majority in both houses of Lok Sabha is always dangerous that means it can change the constitution and that happened in India we try to remember the 42nd amendment act that was introduced in 19 76 and the constitution was distorted beyond recognition we must not forget it at that time the opposition leaders were in jail and the constitution was amended the 42nd amendment was a mini constitution and our constitution was destroyed the original constitution was destroyed fortunately it was reversed by a subsequent amendment of the constitution that is known as the 44th amendment act so 44th amendment act restored the original constitution that means such thing may happen again in future likewise what happened in Pakistan the 27 amendment was done a new federal supreme court was created which has been made more powerful than the current supreme court of Pakistan so of course in India there is only a remotest possibility that such amendment will be brought in near future because in India it is impossible to create another supreme court because India is too big country and India is too diverse in this respect so unlike 1976 what happened in 1976 I mean when the 42nd amendment was done 50 years ago now now I can tell you that now our situation is totally different from that once existed in 1976 now it is impossible to enact an amendment like the 42nd amendment because now we are a literate nations now in the era of what is called the fifth or sixth generation spectrum what is known as the 5G or 6G so now informations cannot be hide there will be public debates discussion dissension agreements and one thing we must not forget that the so called law makers are so called parliamentarians are actually our representative so you go to the Britain in Britain you see that despite not having a written constitution despite having that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty you see Britain's parliament seldom misuse its power because the British parliamentarians are the elected representatives of British people and they fear the British public opinion more than they fears the judiciary now in Britain you see that in case of some important policy making decisions like when the Britain joined the European economic community in early 70s and later we saw that the British parliament actually called for a referendum to be held in Britain to decide the Britain's future in European Union because initially the British public welcomes the Britain's decision to join the European economic community common market later which became the European Union but the British public felt resented by the domination of the European Union to some extent the Britain was forced to compromise its sovereignty and a large section of British public demanded that the British should withdraw from the European Union and immediately what happened the British government called for a referendum and majority British public decided to leave the European Union now Britain is no longer a member of European Union again the Britain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is consisting of four states England Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales so Scotland for 100 years I mean in 1700 I think Scotland march with England but now because of rising Scottish nationalism rising scoting nationalism a large number of Scottish people are demanding independence so accordingly a referendum was held but the majority Scottish people decided to remain within that union I mean that the United Kingdom so British government British people are showing the examples but same British principle is inapplicable in India in Canada the Quebec a French speaking majority province also called for independence and a referendum was held but the majority residents of quebecians I mean Quebec decided to remain within Canada that Canadian federation so but same principle cannot be applied in India so because India I mean India's political landscape is totally different from that of United Kingdom Canada USA Australia and we must never forget that United Kingdom once ruled the world so now in India though constitution is supreme but that constitution is also vulnerable because you see a government a powerful government always does does not like the supremacy of the constitution or the supremacy of judiciary so they would try everything they would try everything to make the government a supreme organ so in this respect I am telling you the one eminent vice president I mean ex vice president frequently talked about that in India the parliament was sovereign fortunately he was removed he was humiliated so in India to protect the constitutional supremacy or sovereignty now the big question is who it who can protect it who can protect the supremacy of the constitution because we must also not forget that the constitution of India is not mere collection of 1.44 lakhs words it is a value loaded documents it is a value loaded documents and it is our duty to protect it it is our duty to uphold it it is our duty it is our solemn duty to protect it to uphold it and now we are bound by it we are bound by its provision because we cannot challenge the constitution before any authority we have to accept it we have to interpret it we have to adapt it but without altering the basic and essential features of the constitution so in India it is a basic structure doctrine that can protect and fortunately we have the basic structure doctrine

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more