How the judiciary maintains accountability
The recent comments by the Vice-President of India on the role of judges has caused much anxiety and is a matter of serious concern that needs to be analysed properly. It is a well-known fact that with power comes responsibility. The position of the Vice-President is second in the order of precedence in India and therefore, anybody holding such a post needs to be extremely cautious before speaking, as his views might send wrong signals to the people. The current Vice-President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, in the context of the Supreme Court setting deadlines for Presidents and Governors to clear Bills approved by the Union/State legislatures, has stated that judges are working as a 'super parliament'; that judges cannot give directions to the President; and that judges are not accountable because the law of the land does not apply to them.
Dissecting the claims
The term 'super parliament' does not have any significance as Parliament is the supreme body constituted by the free will of the people reflecting the icon of popular sovereignty. No agency including the judiciary can go beyond it. It is to be noted that in order to prevent any arbitrary exercise of power by an independent judiciary, the framers of the Constitution had placed all judicial powers in the Constitution itself. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar versus Union of India (1997) in which the Court held that although all judicial powers are vested in the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary is fully secured because of the principle of separation of powers. If at any time judges try to exercise their powers arbitrarily, crossing the boundaries of the separation of powers, it shall be a gross violation of Article 50 and the government which holds majority in Parliament may initiate a process for a removal of the judge concerned.
On the second issue, that the judiciary cannot give directions to the President, a perusal of his position in India needs to be explained. The President is the head of the State (it is clear when Article 52 is read with Article 1). Hence, he or she is elected according to the provisions contained in Articles 54 and 55 establishing India as a Republic. The President is the head of the Executive, the head of the armed forces and also the head of Parliament under Articles 53(1), 53(2) and 79 respectively. Therefore, he is vested with powers according to his position. Giving assent to the Bills is the power of the President which is well within the limits of popular sovereignty. The President cannot and shall not go beyond this doctrine of popular sovereignty. In more simpler words, if the assent is delayed inordinately, it would undermine the people's power which in itself would be undemocratic. Hence, the judiciary setting a time frame for giving assent to Bills is consistent with the requirements of popular sovereignty. It in no way undermines the dignity of the head of the State. Since the people of India abide by the Constitution and believe in its supremacy, all authorities including the President and Governor shall abide by the provisions of the Constitution.
On accountability
The statement given by the Vice-President that the law of the land does not apply to judges is not at all rational because he himself, as the second highest constitutional authority, questions the rule of law in India. The rule of law flows from the doctrine of the supremacy of the Constitution; questioning its efficacy and limitations would undermine the Constitutional mandate. As mentioned above, all judicial powers have been vested in the Constitution itself, and judges are bound to work within that constitutional ambit. Once any of them go beyond it, he may be removed on the grounds of proved misbehaviour, which would include violation of the Constitution. Moreover, Parliament is empowered to set aside a decision of the Court, if required, by making a new law. This provision also signifies the people's power and popular sovereignty.
Last but not the least, the Constitution of India has given powers to the judiciary to review the actions of the State and its instrumentalities for the purpose of establishing the rule of law to protect the rights of the people. The exercise of the inherent power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice under Article 142 is worth mentioning. When there is no express constitutional provision or parliamentary law on a particular subject or issue at hand, the Supreme Court has been vested with the power to become the custodian and sole interpreter of the Constitution.
Conclusively, whenever the country faces large-scale turbulence in almost all sectors, constitutional authorities and citizens both need to look at the events with a liberal mindset and should avoid doing or speaking anything which might ultimately prove detrimental to democratic and constitutional sentiments.
C.B.P. Srivastava is President, Centre for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Minister Sivankutty alleges Raj Bhavan behind ABVP protests; BJP accuses CPI(M) of ‘violence'
He warned that if the Left government uses force to suppress protests, it will face retaliation in the same manner. Hitting back at the CPI(M), BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar accused the Left party of trying to suppress protests by resorting to violence against the protestors. Thiruvananthapuram, Jun 22 (PTI) Kerala General Education Minister V Sivankutty on Sunday claimed that the protests by the BJP's youth and student groups against him, over the 'Bharat Mata' controversy, were aimed at causing riots in the state and were allegedly held on instructions of the Raj Bhavan. Earlier in the day, Sivankutty told reporters that he has been attacked and his travels obstructed during the last couple of days after he walked out of a programme at the Raj Bhavan where a portrait of 'Bharat Mata' — as seen in RSS events — was displayed. He said that as a minister, MLA and a citizen, he has the right to protest against the actions of the Governor at the Raj Bhavan and that is what he did. 'The Governor has said that he will continue with it (the portrait) and we have not responded to that,' he added. Subsequently, the BJP youth wing Yuva Morcha and student organisation — Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) — attacked him and obstructed his vehicle at various places in the state during the last two day, the minister claimed. Meanwhile, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, in an interview given to BJP mouthpiece Janmabhumi, said that the concept of 'Bharat Mata' became more clear to him when he was jailed during the emergency period in the country. He said that during that time he saw the concept of Bharat Mata as being above ideology and politics. 'I got a strong urge to work more for Bharat Mata. The inspiration to become a 'sangh pracharak' also became stronger during that time,' he said in the interview. Sivankutty, during his press conference in the morning, also alleged that at one such protest, ABVP activists tore apart the national flag, a claim reportedly denied by the student organisation. The minister also alleged that the protests and attacks against him were being carried out on the instructions of the Raj Bhavan, 'but they were unable to gather enough youth for the same'. He said that the protests against him by the two organisations were carried out by a handful of youngsters who acted as 'suicide squads' and jumped in front of his moving vehicle. ABVP and Yuva Morcha activists had waved black flags at the minister's vehicle in Kozhikode on Saturday and also burned his effigy in protest against his walkout from the Raj Bhavan event. Sivankutty said that ABVP and Yuva Morcha should realise that showing support to the Governor, who is allegedly acting contrary to the Constitution, will turn people against them. He also claimed that two hardcore RSS activists in the Raj Bhavan were advising the Governor to act in this manner. The minister said that he will not name them, but everyone knows them very well. The Congress too spoke out against the Governor's recent actions and said the Raj Bhavan should not be turned into a venue for political activities. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief Sunny Joseph also said that protests against the Governor's actions need not be taken to the streets. Later in the day, Chandrasekhar, in a statement, claimed that it was the CPI(M) which was behind the violence against the ABVP and Yuva Morcha protestors because the BJP exposed the Left party's 'anti-nationalism' and 'appeasement politics'. He also accused the Left parties of being 'intolerant' towards protests against them. The BJP leader said that protests against the Governor by the Students Federation of India and the Democratic Youth Federation of India — the student and youth wings of the CPI(M), respectively — were acceptable, but agitations against a Left minister were not. This is an 'authoritarian style' of communist parties, he claimed. He warned that if attacks on BJP and related organisations' workers are not stopped, the Left parties and their leaders will have to pay a heavy price. 'If the CPI(M) is trying to suppress the protesters by taking the law into its own hands, and if the police decide to help them by standing by, then the national movements, including the BJP, will take to the streets,' the BJP leader said. He also said that criticising and insulting the 'Bharat Mata', a sentimental concept for the country, was not acceptable and whosoever dares to do so will face a strong protest in a democratic manner. Chandrasekhar further warned that if the Left government's decision was to suppress the protests by force, there were those on the other side who were capable of retaliating in the same manner. The southern state has been witnessing a tussle between Arlekar and the Marxist party-led LDF government over the display of 'Bharat Mata portrait' during official events at the Raj Bhavan here. PTI HMP HMP ROH This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Emergency was ‘ominous' for country: K N Govindacharya
'The Sangh Parivar gave stability to that movement, kept it going and a ban was also imposed on it and finally there was a change of power,' he told PTI Videos in an interview. The former BJP functionary asserted that the Sangh Parivar gave stability to that movement. New Delhi, Jun 22 (PTI) The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) played an important role in public awakening during the 'ominous' Emergency period with 65,000 people associated with it going to jail, former Sangh pracharak and political thinker N Govindacharya has said. Responding to a question about the role of the RSS in the 'Sampoorna Kranti' movement ahead of the Emergency, Govindacharya said the Sangh had a very big role in that movement. 'Just like Kurma had played a role in maintaining balance during the 'samudra manthan' with Basuki Nag and Mandara Parvat, the RSS had a similar role. In such a situation, Sangh played an important role in public awakening,' he said. According to mythology, Kurma, the tortoise avatar of Lord Vishnu, played an important role during the 'samudra manthan' (churning of ocean) to obtain the nectar of immortality. He said the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975 was an outcome of her 'lust for power'. 'The Constitution was violated, fundamental rights and freedom of expression were crushed, forced sterilisation took place, censorship was imposed, human freedom and system were attacked. The Emergency was completely ominous and could have been avoided. But such a situation arose due to lust for power,' he said. In response to a question about the circumstances leading to the Sampoorna Kranti movement, Govindacharya said such a situation arose due to issues like inflation, unemployment, bad governance, corruption, poor education. 'It started with the Bihar movement and at that time the students demanded arrangements for better studies, hostel facilities etc. But the then Education Minister of Bihar lathi-charged the students, chased them away and neglected them due to vote bank,' he recalled. Govindacharya said with the arrival of Jayaprakash Narayan, the movement got leadership, gained stature and its credibility was established. Asked about the reasons for imposing Emergency, Govindacharya said Indira Gandhi's insecurity within her party, the atmosphere created by some close people spreading wrong information and her objective of remaining in power by hook or by crook must have been the main reasons and for that morality was set aside. Attacking the then Indira Gandhi led government, he said there was a stagnation in the system. The entire public was against insensitivity, irresponsibility and lack of accountability in the system and this was expressed during the students' movement. In response to a question about his experience during the Emergency, he said he was in jail for two months during the Bihar movement (students' movement) and at the end of the Emergency he also had to go to jail. The former Sangh Pracharak said during the movement, people associated with the Sangh Parivar used to go among the people with different names so that they could avoid arrest. The Sampoorna Kranti movement against the Emergency was an unusual act of ordinary people, he stated. When asked whether the objectives of the Emergency were achieved, Govindacharya said, 'The opposite happened. There was a change of power but the prohibitions were not followed.' Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan gave the call for Sampooran Kranti in 1974. The demand for resignation of the then Ghafoor ministry in Bihar ultimately turned into a larger demand for the dismissal of the Indira Gandhi government. PTI DR DIV DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
EC Cites Privacy, Legal Concerns After Congress Demands Polling Booth CCTV Footage
Last Updated: The Election Commission cited privacy and legal issues in response to Rahul Gandhi's demand for CCTV footage of polling stations. Gandhi urged publishing digital voter rolls. Following a demand made by Congress MP and Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, the Election Commission on Saturday cited privacy and legal hurdles while sharing the CCTV footage of webcasting of the polling stations. This comes after Rahul Gandhi has called upon the Election Commission to publish consolidated, digital, machine-readable voter rolls for the most recent elections to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas of all states, including Maharashtra, saying that 'telling the truth" will protect the poll panel's credibility. ECI said that the seemingly legitimate appeal of releasing the videos or CCTV footage from polling stations on election day undermines voter privacy and security, contradicting the Representation of the People Act and Supreme Court guidelines. 'What is veiled as a very logical demand is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters, legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950/1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court of India," it said. 'Sharing of the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well as the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements," the poll body added. It said that if a particular political party gets a lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and thereafter, may harass or intimidate the electors. The Election Commission further issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the Congress MP. . In any election, there may be electors who decide not to vote. Sharing of video footage of the poll day may result in the identification of such electors. This can also lead to profiling of the voters who voted as well as those who did not vote, which may become the basis for discrimination, denial of services, intimidation or inducement. Supreme Court order: The Supreme Court held that the right to vote includes the right not to vote, and the right of secrecy is accorded to even those persons who have decided not to vote. Video footage: Polling day videography records the sequence of voters entering the polling station and their identities, similar to Form 17A, which contains sensitive information about voters, including their ID details and signatures. Both pose a risk to voting secrecy. Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under Section 128 of RP Act, 1951 for – Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section is punishable with imprisonment for a term expending up to 3 months or fine or both.
