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 42nd 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.
