Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi this time commented verdict on NJAC!

                  I found two interesting points here. one is regarding governments interest in adding 3 civilians to judge selection process so that the selection committee will have 3+2 members (if so!). This is as equal as adding civilians to brigadier or general selection process. What exact technical knowledge/behavioral approach/skillsets can be evaluated from an out of field person in a core technical field. We have seen that in T N Seshan period government added 2 more members to body, that time this act was clearly understood as fading Seshan's powers, fine. Now with this NJAC provision government want to add 3 non-judicial i.e. civilians to state and supreme court judge selection committee.


SC strikes back singhvi had foreseen this, warned govt but ravi shankar prasad...




If we take a look at the making of Constitution Of India, we can see that CAG, Judiciary, Election commission are not responsible to parliament they have there own powers. When government says that NJAC verdict is setback to parliamentary sovereignty means government considers parliament as supreme in the systems. And to my honest understanding as per Indian Constitution, parliament is not supreme. To my honest understanding, parliament can not rule out observations, directions, rulings of CAG, Judiciary, Election commission.


We respect judiciary but the Parliamentary sovereignty has received a setback today








Once again it has appeared from news about Swami's letter to PM about his recent concern.
It appears that AG Rohatgi has passed some very poor comments on deletion of controversial section in the Information Technology (IT) Act, National Judicial Appointments Commission Act.


Dr. Subramanian Swami has written a letter to Prime Minister regarding number of concerns.


Dr. Swami has warned Prime Minister in his letter that the trend and inclination of the law officers could get the Government a bad name in public just as Indira Gandhi got during the emergency imposed between 1975-1977.




personal remarks of AG about lady judges.....

We all know that many a time there is favorism in any selection committee...if someone thinks that adding civil public servants to public servants body will change situation, then these are inexperienced unknowledgeable or just opportunists. They don't have historical record of civil public servants i.e. representatives activities against national interest, collective activity against national interest/s. This is the reason why the makers of the constitution put watch dogs on public servants to safeguard we the people. We people should be thankful to them. I really owe to the makers of our constitution who really had a very high vision, they knew, we the people are careless and the public servants can take undue advantage of this. So they appointed watch dogs…wow…million salutes to them…and we the people…you know after all this still in yougnidraa…

My dear Prime Minister, if NJAC amendment is clearly part of your agenda/program/idea....please go ahead. But if it is not yours, check few more recent activities on behalf of your party/government of just you itself. Those are not good for nations future. We the people normally expect everyone to respect system. Court is higher function of system. We obviously expect executives to respect judiciary, and this is for second time your AG is highlighted for commenting on Judiciary.


Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi crossed limits by advising supreme court


My honest feel is, either someone is taking advantage of you, you are used for some advantages, or you are allowing someone to take benefits from your presence. We both know, history will answer my question.
Sushan

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi crossed limits by advising supreme court!

To notice since 80’s, judicial intervention has occurred in more number of cases of parliamentary affairs, and this has irked panic in politicians that, judiciary is prevailing its limitations and shadowing over there fields of legislation.

Yesterday attorney general Mukul Rohatgi advised supreme court on behalf of center, "Someday, there will be a debate. As far as CAG post is concerned, the government has in the last 20 years appointed persons of impeccable integrity. Sharma had an exceptional career without blemish. In any way, the court's hands are full. Its dockets are overflowing. It would be better to divert energy for tackling pendency than taking up issues relating to appointment of constitutional figures."

Previously, LS speaker Somanath Chatarji constantly, progressively put this point more and more aggressively and in louder voice, on every possible stage he was offered. In his aligations he accused the judiciary, that when emergency was imposed, they (supreme court) left people on mercy of Executives. This is completely falls statement, because power of judicial review on any law, passed by the government was suspended, and CAFEPOSA, MISA were the major laws, where no judicature was given jurisdiction to admit or hear any plea for relief or challenge. In other words judiciary itself was suspended. How it could entertain any application, which could not mention relief under specific provision. Somanathda is making mendacious statement. And it must be true!
When an issue has to be created or, needs a support; in politics it is a kind of strategy that, one leader keeps it discussing and on the background, other pleads for support. This is a common practice in politics.
The same way Somnathda aggressively accused Judiciary for intervening in "Parliamentarians Affairs", while others should be busy convincing other politicians to support the issue. One can remind that, the very same way "Mr. Election Commissioner" T.N. Sheshan was criticized, accused and latter, constitution was amended and, two parallel commissioners were appointed to control Mr. Sheshan. In judicial language it is a case law. ( read this the way we understand 'cultural police' this is in relation with something like political judges;) ground for the case was 'functioning against interests of politicians'. The charge was 'overcoming from the limits as politicians think'. And so the acquisition, Judgment is guilty and sentence is constitution should be amended! This was the case, and this is the law of politicians; as far as our country is concerned.
Now it's the day for the Judiciary itself. It is facing same type of acquisitions and; for the country in the name of public interest; same sentence, and lastly the constitutional amendment to control it. This is what is expected to work in coming feature. And in feature, specifically this is going to affect media. Judiciary is a major block in making laws to overrule article 14 and 18 of the constitution hence the block, which is judiciary; must be the first kill. Next should be the right of expression (already it is seized by 42^nd amendment with, fundamental duties! ). If one thinks as, Politicians might be thinking that, Amending Judicial powers can control media resulting the absolute control over public sentiment. Then it's not just possibility but it has a strong reason. To understand this one has to analyse statistical figures of Constitutional Court. In conclusive manner one can easily notice, that number of cases challenging Constitutional Amendment or any Notification, Regulation or a Bill passed by parliament; first these were criticized by Media itself and then either by public interest litigation for judicial review or Judiciaries power to take cognizance and make review of concerned law, the case may be, those notifications, regulations or laws were held as against constitutional provisions.
This reminds the days when the Parliament was made kitchen for cocking amendments and insertions in different provisions of Constitutional law; that was Indira Era. 42nd Amendment was a major punch, to the makers of the Constitution. The judicial review was revoked by this amendment; heart of the constitution was removed. It was first of its kind of attack on our constitution, to change its face 'from we the People; to we the Executives'. Then after it is a regular play of succeeding governments. Casually, they replace provisions, of different sections and articles of the constitution. Nevertheless the foundation pillars of the constitution were left safe.

Under Indian Constitution, Parliament, Judiciary, Comptroller and Auditor General, Election Commission, are having equal and specific role in control and distribution of equity itself. In other words, these are loyal watch dogs of the constitution.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi has not challanged power of Supreme court to interfere in governments decision on appointing former defence secretary Shashikant Sharma as comptroller and auditor general (CAG). But he says, … if the court's conscience was shocked by certain appointments to constitutional posts, the SC would surely have a say in it in public interest…

If so, it is not wrong to say that his comment, “…the court's hands are full. Its dockets are overflowing. It would be better to divert energy for tackling pendency than taking up issues relating to appointment of constitutional figures…” are sort of daring to court; judiciary has not solicited his advice.

The applicant has highlighted his concern over the appointment of Shashikant Sharma as CAG. In his plea Petitioners' counsel Prashant Bhushan says, “…Sharma's appointment as CAG could give rise to a conflict of interest situation as Sharma would now be auditing purchase of defence equipment, which were procured during his tenure as defence secretary. Several of the purchases, including VVIP helicopters from AgustaWestland, have been mired in controversy…” here the petitioners concern is clear.

Here the main concern is, why government wants to limit judiciary from its constitutional powers to review government’s decisions. And, if constitution has powered the watch dogs for a reason, in the name of government how politicians dares to challenge it.

The fact appears that, ‘we the people’ are not secured from government machinery by, ‘executive public servants’ but it is judiciary that is saving we the people from bad allies of executive public servants and government machineries, time to time. In recent past we have seen that it was judiciary that saved nation in, Balco case, coal allocation scam or 3g scam like cases.

Representatives of people that is house of law, which can be in a state or at center; which is Assembly or the Parliament. Political parties in the country are not recognized under our constitution; In house it is treated as group of representatives of people. From constitutional view, neither they are expected nor they are powered to run the country, 'they are watchdogs; elected by countrymen to see that the bureaucracy that is system, is functioning in national interest. And they cannot interfere in day to day function of system that is bureaucracy.'(Supreme Court Judgment repeated and referred in number of cases.) Next is Election Commission. In Mr. T.N. Sheshan Era we observed that, constitution has powered this autonomous body even not only control over the parliamentarians but ministers, the Cabinet functions are also under its scanner. Legally! Since then, each and every election, our representatives are bound to stay out of government cars and government guesthouses.

And now The Comptroller and Auditor General; every year we read from news papers, that this and that government expense was challenged, ministerial decision was challenged, or comptroller cancelled certain  expense or procedure as the rules and norms were not followed, and ordered for enquiry in that specific matter, may be defense deal, or Passport procedure, It is Auditor Comptroller who is first taken in to account by bureaucracy, when a minister asks his executives for a particular 'out of way' expense.
As per the petitioner, if Mr. Shashikant Sharma as defense secretary has made number of decisions and purchases which are allegedly challenged, how he can audit it seating as CAG? This is logical objection. Government should have come up with proper, clear and technical explanation and not the way attorney general advised court to, clean pending cases then pocking into executives business.

Sudarshan Harshe