LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25 July 11 declined to issue a notice to the Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram to clarify the circumstances under which he gave a green signal to the Police to swoop down on the sleeping Satyagrahis in the Ramlila Maidan on the night of 4th/5th June 11.

At the last hearing the Division Bench of Justice B.S.Chauhan and Justice Swatantar Kumar had heard the plea of Swami Ramdev's counsel, Ram Jethmalani that the police atrocities on men, women and children was carried out at the behest of P. Chidambaram, Union Home Minister and that it was a government decision. The counsel for Swami Ramdev Ji had pressed for issuance of a notice to the Home Minister so that the Apex Court could know what the reasons for a baton charge on a sleeping assembly of Satyagrahis were. The Apex Court had said that the matter may be considered on 25 July 11 when the case would come up for a hearing.

At this hearing the Hon'ble judges said that as of now the aim was to know what the circumstances for Police lathi charge that night on a peaceful assembly of sleeping Satyagrahis were. The Apex Court does not wish to widen the area of investigation beyond that at this point of time. In the legal circles this development is being interpreted as a temporary relief to P. Chidambaram, Home Minister. He may be summoned later to present his side of the picture, if circumstances so require.

In my opinion the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not wish to castigate the Executive too much in view of their protest in the form of a Review petition against the order of another Division Bench that had sharply criticized the Government of India for going slow in the Black Money case and in the case of stashing of money in foreign banks to avoid taxes and also allied matters.

The Government of India has submitted its point of view that the Constitution of India recognizes division of power and responsibility between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The three pillars of Democracy should respect each other and confine their activity to their respective turf.. The Apex Court is yet to hear that Review petition but it certainly has set the ball rolling for observing Judicial Restraint and allow the Executive to make its own decision in its area of constitutional responsibility.

Thus in the coming few months, nay weeks, the Apex Court will redefine the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. Where will the Judicial Activity not intrude into the area of responsibility and where the Judiciary can act in the field of Executive if the latter has abdicated its responsibility.

The Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution of India and make a decision which is as good as law passed by the Parliament of India. There is no doubt that the three pillars of the democracy as enshrined in the Constitution of India function independent of each other, it is only the Judiciary that has the authority of Judicial Review of any action of the Executive and even an Act of Parliament to ensure that no act or omission goes against the grain of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has ruled in the past that an Act passed by the Parliament may be ultra vires the Constitution of India despite the assent of the President if it violates the Basic Character of the Constitution. The Basic Character of the Constitution is preserved and protected by the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Law is FINAL.

By Brigadier Chitranjan Sawant,VSM

"Loved reading this piece by Chitranjan Sawant?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

Category Constitutional Law, Other Articles by - Chitranjan Sawant