Supremecourt power
gowtham
(Querist) 26 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
can supremecourt direct president of india to call for a joint session of parliment and table cag report ?
if yes how?? ,
can a direction be issued to cabinet to consider anna hazares version of lokpal bill ?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 26 August 2011
Supreme Court have vide powers under Constitution especially under its directive articles to direct do so, however, it is another thing, it directs or not.
gowtham
(Querist) 26 August 2011
the question is that can it direct president to do so if how,please give with legal provision and source for better understanding
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 August 2011
supreme court has wide inherent powers ..
It is the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution. It can be moved for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. For this purpose, it can issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, etc
The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 August 2011
it can direct goverment to table the CAG report before parliament Under the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to protect fundamental rights and to interpret law. The Constitution does not give power to Courts to direct the framing of a law.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 26 August 2011
Supreme Court can not direct the President of India to call for the joint parliamentary session....firstly there is a separation of power, parliament itself is a Supreme Body which derives its powers from the people.
further SC can not compel the Cabinet to consider to pass a particular bill or law.
keep in mind, the SC can not interfere in the Law Making power of the Parliament or any Assembly....it has judicial functions to perform, however it can check the Constitutional Validity of any law....i.e. Vires of any law can be challenged before HC or SC (as per situation)
SC can not direct the govt. to adopt a particular policy or formulate a particular law in a particular format.
Unfortunately, the current situation in the country has put forth the ignorance of Constitutional Provisions among the people of India....protest of Anna Hazare is fine and must be supported but simultaneously we can not go beyond the Constitutional Provisions....rather than looking at SC it will be better to compel the Legislature to enact better laws.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 August 2011
Expert : Kiran Kumar has given most appropriate answer to your particular query.
mahendrakumar
(Expert) 27 August 2011
even from a non lawyer point of view,I fully subscribe to Mr.Kiran Kumar.
Advocate Rajkumarlaxman
(Expert) 27 August 2011
Even i agree with our expert Kiran Kumar. and an appropriate suggestion
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 27 August 2011
We should not forget that there have been various occasions when President directed Government to convene session or put policy matter for its consideration. The parliament followed the verdict of President and similar is the situation with SC. The list of such instances is very long.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 27 August 2011
The president is having power to order for a joint session, but the SC is not having such power.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 August 2011
My knowledge in constitutional matters are limited to the scope of what is called General Knowledge, as i have never practiced this law.
In view of controversy arising here, i revisited provisions contained in CHAPTER IV.—THE UNION JUDICIARY of the Constitution from Articles 124 to 147,but could not lay hands on a provision which empowers supreme court to direct the President of India to call for the joint parliamentary session.
The President is made constitutional authority and appointments and the resignations of Supreme court Judges has to be made and accepted under his seal.Article 122 bars any procedural incompetence of Parliament to be challenged in any court.Matters enumerated in Article 131 confers original and those in 134to136 appellate jurisdiction in the Apex Court.Article 137 empowers it with REVIEW and article 138 enlarges its jurisdiction to be conferred up on it by enactment of Parliament,article 139 confers writ powers in it in addition to article 32.
It is article 143 which makes it empowered or rather say it obliges it to express opinion on matters sought for by the President.Here i would like this article to reproduce"143. (1) If at any time it appears to the President that
a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise,
which is of such a nature and of such public importance
that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme
Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for
consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it
thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything in
2
*** the proviso to article 131, refer a dispute of the kind
mentioned in the
3
[said proviso] to the Supreme Court
for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such
hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion
thereon."
What emerges then, to me, is that Apex Court can not opine sou motto but rather only and only when called for by the President.So i would like to say that this is not a power of Supreme court to express opinion to President but rather an obligation on it to express opinion when called for by the President who derives this right by virtue of article 143.
Therefore ,the Supreme Court,even being the Apex Court is not above the President as the President is made head of all three wings of our democratic system.
Yet the matter does not end here as to What will happen when parliament or executive(whose head is also the President) does not act in accordance with constitution including the President,whether judicial interference would be warranted as a call to save the system designed in the constitution or not may be a matter of an academical discussion and i am not aware if Supreme Court has ever had a case to discuss this aspect to 'assume jurisdiction as of Constitutional necessity'(i prefer to coin the term personally)or not. I am also not aware how Pandits in field view it.
Further opinions would be most welcome on this academically interesting topic.
gowtham
(Querist) 27 August 2011
fundemental right are gaurenteed,against the state ,art 12 which defines state which includes central and state executives also,i ve come across a case law
haroobhai v. state , it said writs can be issued to president of india ,
justice bhagawathi in case of s.p gupta v. president of india ,and in famous case of state of uttar pradesh v. raj narain ,right to know ,whats happening in cag report, if parliment decided to defer the session to evade discussion on cag report ,then supremecourt can direct president to call parliment into session and table cag report,
