In an unusual outburst, after passing several orders which were being obeyed by the Naveen Patnaik government and the Centre, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices Markandey Katju and P Sathasivam gave a general ultimatum governments -- sectarian violence and persecution of minorities would not be tolerated.Case #2:
"If your government is unable to protect minorities, then you quit office," said Justice Katju, who for the first time was part of the Bench headed by CJI which had been hearing a petition by Archbishop Raphael Cheenath. [link]
This could be an alarm for controversial Congress MP Mani Kumar Subba from Assam. The Supreme Court on Monday said the President alone could take a decision whether or not to disqualify him from the Lok Sabha on the basis of a CBI probe report accusing him of forging his date of birth and expressing grave doubts about his Indian citizenship.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices Markandey Katju and P Sathasivam dealt extensively on the CBI report and remarked: "Prima facie it appears that the certificate he has produced is not genuine."
When petitioner Bipendra Nath Singh's counsel pressed for Subba's disqualification, the Bench said: "The Supreme Court is not empowered to do it. There is a procedure provided under Article 103 of the Constitution, which vests the discretion with the President. You have the CBI report with you. So why don't you approach the President for appropriate action?" [link]
[previous posts on this issue: The mysterious born again Congress MP, Easy come, easy go]
The apex court's ire at the Orissa situation is understandable. This is a politically volatile issue, successfully internationalized by Cheenath & Co. The alarming part is the highly technical handling of the second case.
The supreme court can not throw out a state government just like it can not throw out legislators. Yet the supreme court made its views clear in one case and in another case pointed out technicalities.
Keep in mind that this legislator participated in the recent confidence vote in the parliament.
CNN-IBN reports further:
Appearing for Subba, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Nepalese government had written letters to the CBI saying "Limboo" and "Subba" were two different persons and wanted the court's direction to produce the Nepalese government's letters in the court. At this, Sinha contended that the CBI itself had found Subba's nationality suspect and India did not need a certificate from the neighbouring government on whether he was an Indian national. [link]Good fences make good neighbors but bad fences make the secular party's ranks swell.
2 comments:
The Justice have probably wizened up after a previous snub, and have always been afflicted by populism.
Though I don't remember exactly, the Parliament unanimously (literally!) passed a law sidelining some SC judgement regarding Parliament issue. I think that too was related to some issue related to MPs conduct inside the Parliament. It took all the politicial parties a matter of hours to show who was the boss.
Of course pulling up the Orissa govt. is sooo very politically correct now, hardly surprising they wouldn't jump at the opportunity.
read the history of progressive judgments from arun shorie's book "courts and their judgments". I saw a online blurb now that rings so good - and also gives a feeling that there is nothing new to write.
"A feature that strikes one as one sits listening to arguments in a court, as it does when one reads judgments, is that judges consider each issue as an issue in itself – isolated from the context of society, often independently of the consequences that it requires little imagination to see will follow from it. Furthermore, different principles, different encapsulations of a principle impress themselves upon the judges on different occasions… In judgment after judgment one comes across a determined effort to not let facts come in the way of the verdict… After all, judgments are replete with perorations. It is not that they adhere solely to matters legal: discourses on social philosophy, on sociology, on India’s history – rather, the dominant versions of these – are commonplace. Indeed, sometimes it seems that the particular case is the occasion that the judge has been waiting for to deliver himself of opinions on some subject: so little in the judgment turns on the oration. (pp. 239, 252)"
Post a Comment