Krishnadas RajagopalNew Delhi
The government’s affidavit asking the Supreme Court to keep the sedition case pending during the reconsideration of the colonial law is at odds with a Constitution Bench judgment which held that the government cannot speak for or make promises to the court on behalf of Parliament.
While the Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana said it “respects the government’s word”, Justice Surya Kant, speaking from the Bench, made it a point to observe that “the government cannot give guarantees on behalf of the Parliament”.
Arguments were made in court that a “reconsideration” of Section 124A would entail the legislative process. The Supreme Court cannot give the Parliament a deadline to complete the process. Neither can the government promise the Supreme Court a specific outcome from the Parliament. The Parliament stands alone and independent in its domain of law-making. Then how can the government, through an affidavit, ask the Supreme Court to halt its constitutional duty to examine the constitutionality of Section 124A?
“The deponents of the affidavits filed in court may speak for the parties on whose behalf they swear to the statement. They do not speak for the Parliament. No one may speak for the Parliament and Parliament is never before the court,” the Constitution Bench had held in the Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited case in 1982.
The judgment held that the court was the only “authentic voice” which may echo or interpret Parliament’s voice once a statute leaves the Parliament House.
“Validity of a legislation is not to be judged merely by affidavits filed on behalf of the State, but by all the relevant circumstances which the court may ultimately find and more especially by what may be gathered from what the legislature has itself said,” the Constitution Bench had stressed.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who drew the attention of the top court to the Sanjeev Coke judgment, said there was a “pattern” to the filing of such affidavits by the government side.
“When the Puttuswamy case (privacy) was about to be closed, the government filed a memo in the Supreme Court saying the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee has been formed to look into the issues. In the marital rape case before the Delhi High Court, the government said it is reconsidering the law...” Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted amidst objections from Solicitor- General Tushar Mehta.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the court could not wait merely because there was an “intention” to reconsider the sedition provision, the doing of which may take six months to a year. “The legislature makes laws. It is for you [Supreme Court] to decide whether a law is constitutional or not,” he said.
https://epaper.thehindu.com/Home/MShareArticle?OrgId=G9U9Q4B6B.1&imageview=0
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ