Mumbai:
Amidst a debate on the judicial overache, India’s Chief Justice Bra Gavai today pointed to the protocol gap during his visit to his home state, Maharashtra. In a subtle comment for the purpose of the executive, he said that the discussion about Article 142 – which gives special powers to the Supreme Court – will begin if the judges break the protocol.
The Chief Justice, who took over the top judicial post in the country last month and became the second Dalit to rise to the post, attended a felicitation ceremony in Mumbai and then visited Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Memorial Chaiti Bhoomi.
During his address at the Felicitation event organized by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Chief Justice indicated the absence of three prominent officers – Maharashtra Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and Mumbai Police Commissioner.
“Three pillars of democracy – judiciary, legislature and executive – are the same. Each constitutional institution should show respect and respect for other institutions. When a person from Maharashtra becomes the Chief Justice of India and visits Maharashtra for the first time, if the Principal Secretary of Maharashtra, Director General of Police or Mumbai Police Commissioner should not do it, he should not do it. The constitutional body is respected to another, “said Chief Justice Gavai.
“When the head of a constitutional institution first visits the state, the way he is treated should be reconsidered. Whether it was any of us, Article 142 would have been discussed. They may look like small things, but the public should be made aware of them,” he said.
When Chief Justice Chait proceeded to the land, Maharashtra Chief Secretary Sujata Saunk, Director General of Police Rashmi Shukla and Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti were present after knowing about the comment of the Chief Justice.
In Chaiti Bhumi, when the Chief Justice was asked about his comment on the protocol lapse, he replied that he “creating” about the protocol, but only said what happened.
Chief Justice Bra Gawai et Chaituya Bhoomi
The Chief Justice’s remarks, especially their reference to Article 142, are important, as they come against the backdrop of the allegations of judicial overlapping from some quarters after the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, which effectively sets a time limit for the President and the Governors to approve the bills passed by the Assembly for the second time.
President Draupadi Murmu has written to the Supreme Court and asked whether the governors can be imposed a deadline. “Has the Governor assisted and advised by assistance and advice by the Council of Ministers, using all the options available with him when a bill was presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?” The President asked the Supreme Court.
President Murmu asked whether the Governor’s practice of constitutional discretion of the Governor is justified – under the trial in court. He cited Article 361 of the Constitution, stating that the President or Governor would not be accountable to any court for the practice of the powers and duties of the post.
“In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time -outline and method of practice of powers by the President, can the deadline be imposed and the method of exercise through judicial orders for the practice of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is determined?” President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking his opinion on the matter.
In April, a bench of Justice JB Pardwala and Justice R Mahadan used special powers of the court under Article 142 to solve a face-off on bills staying between the DMK government in Tamil and Governor RN Ravi. The court said that the Governor’s refusal to approve 10 bills was “illegal and arbitrary”. The judgment also states that the President should consult the courts on constitutional matters. The bench said that if the matter is related to policies, the Supreme Court may refuse to express its advisory opinion. “In matters related to purely political views, the practice of a self-laughable restraint by the court is in line with the principle of political thicken, that is, the courts do not enter into the areas of governance in which the Constitution gives a completely a privilege to the executive.”
“However, in some extraordinary circumstances, the Governor may reserve a bill to consider the President on the basis that the bill is dangerous for the principles of democracy and an interpretation of the constitution is necessary to find out whether such a law should be accepted or not. In cases where a bill is not included in the constitutions. Said.
“It is expected that the executive of the Sangh should not accept the role of courts in determining the virus of a bill and as a practice case, refer to such questions in the Supreme Court under Article 143. We have no qualification to tell that the hands of the executive are attached to the hands of the executive with purely legal issues and only the constitution courts are required,”
The decision gave strong reactions from many quarters, including a BJP couple. BJP’s Nishikant Dubey questioned whether the Supreme Court could give direction to the Chief Justice’s appointment authority – President. He said, “The Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country. The Supreme Court is going beyond its border. If anyone has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, the Parliament and the State Assembly should be shut down,” he said.
The BJP took itself away from the comment and said that it has always respected the judiciary.
While the court did not entertain the court’s plea against Mr. Dubey, saying that the courts are “not as delicate as flowers”, it described the BJP MP’s remarks as “highly inductive” and its purpose was to attract attention.
