Untitled

India! I dare you to be rich

Supreme Court is a court, not the executive of India. I’m with Modi and Jaitley on this.

I've already commented in the past on this issue (in favour of Modi). Now I support Jaitley. Extracts from a FB conversation

AB: Narendra Modi is not interested in the Lokyukta. So SC is not supposed to force the govt to uphold the law even if the state government sits on it for 8 years? Jaitley feels we are all a bunch of monkeys here..

Arun Jaitley disagrees with Supreme Court opinion on Gujarat Lokayukta – The Economic Times

Sanjeev Sabhlok I haven't read the details, but Jaitley is right. The SC has no business to give Governor a power over an elected CM. It can censure the CM but the governor as no right to appoint ANYONE without cabinet approval.

AB Yes, i agree.. but the post has been lying vacant for some 8 years. The executive has failed the people as always. So the SC had to step in.. If the CM doesn't do his duty, what do we do? The governor being a congress appointee was more than happy to do the job. 

If NaMo had shown the guts and appointed the Lokayukta 8 years ago, the problem would have never arise.

Sanjeev Sabhlok AB, please realise that people have the power to change Modi. The PEOPLE govern India through their elected reps. Not the Supreme Court. The way SC is behaving, I'm coming to a view that the SC is itself flouting the Constitution. The SC can issue strictures. It can insist that Modi appoint LA by a fixed date. But it CANNOT authorise an unconstitutional decision of a governor. Governor is a rubber stamp. Not a constitutional authority. The whole thing reeks of political games, not justice.

AB i agree totally.. But The whole issue arose because the executive failed to do it's job.. People of gujarat have no choice.. There is no other alternative in gujarat.. Modi has done some good work by improving the roads etc.. People cant kich him out over this one issue.. It's not practical, especially when the alternative is a congress govt with people like Manish Tiwari at the helm of affairs.

It is a politics on the part of the governor, i agree.. But the end result is good.. Coz guj now finally has a lokayukta..

Sanjeev Sabhlok I'm afraid AB, you're not getting my point. The SC is breaking India's constitution. It is destroying India's last institution, by becoming a branch of the congress government. There are many ways to shame Modi. SC has not exercised them. It has chosen to break the Constitution. Does that make sense? I'm saying that the SC has chosen the worst way to deal with this issue.

Remember this is a REPUBLIC. the SC is not elected by the people. Its only job is a judge. Not the player.

AB Agree totally… It is probably skirting the constitutional boundaries.. Judiciary is trying to fill the void created by a dysfunctional state. 

the worst part of this all? The people have no say in this.. Everyone is claiming to be represent the people's interest, but no one asking them.. A referendum in Gujarat would have been a much fairer way to go about it.. Dont know if it constitutionally possible.

The problem also lies in the fact that people vote only once in 5 years.. If people had a say in the government's day to day functioning, they would have managed to overturn Modi's decision without getting rid of him totally(coz the alternative is even worse!)

Iceland voted twice against paying of foreign debts. The government had no choice..

Sanjeev Sabhlok The way out is for every constitutional authority to exercise only the powers authorised in the constitution. If Modi is not appointing LA, but people keep voting him to power, then they are saying they don't care about LA. If you care, then you must offer an alternative party. I'm working towards such an alternative liberal party for India.


If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:

Breaking Free of Nehru

Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.

Google
Print Friendly

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
9 thoughts on “Supreme Court is a court, not the executive of India. I’m with Modi and Jaitley on this.
  1. Kishan

    AB has either not read the news report properly or worse, read them selectively or still worse, is being dishonest. The Governor has more than Modi’s share of the blame for absence of Lokayukta. She either sat on Modi’s recommendation or rejected them and appointed an anti-Modi man, in consultation with the leader of Opposition but without consulting Modi.
    Jaitly has faulted SC judgement on two counts. Firstly the SC itself says that not consulting Modi was not according to constitution, still it upheld the appointment (SC also sometimes gets confused).Secondly, its view that the opinion of the Chief Justice of High Court is supreme in this matter is erroneous.

     
  2. Dr. O. P. Sudrania

    CJI has acted ultra vires in hand in glove with UPA II. He certainly will not enjoy the confidence in his job from the people. That will be highly devastating.

     
  3. Rakesh Bhatt

    Completely agree with you.Judiciary should divert their full energy towards their constitutional responsibilities.This judgment of SC has huge implications.Hope Main Stream Media learn to impartially debate this issue.
    Why can’t our Media and so called Intellectuals deal case by case with the issues,biased approach is dangerous for a democracy.

     
  4. Y. R. Palia

    Sanjeev, I am copying article 163 of the constitution of India here . Please go through.
    Article 163 {Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor}

    There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his function, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.
    If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
    The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court.

    Now even when had the discretionary power, he approached the Gujarat High court, took its advice and then proceeded.
    This though is the finding of a lay person. If you have gone through the finding of the Gujarat High court, and the way it castigated the chief minister, which eventually was removed by the Supreme court, you will notice that Modi has deliberately refused to appoint a Lok Ayukta.
    Though I do not believe the appointment of the Lok Ayukta will bring about a lot of change.
    I would agree with you, if the primacy of individual rights was accepted in India, then the refusal to accept would have been moral.
    The Gujarat High court order (and the governor had approached the Gujarat High court and the High court on its own did not pass the order),
    just states that the Governor was right in appointing his powers of discretion under the article 163 of the constitution of India.
    The supreme court was approached by the Gujarat government and on the appeal of the Gujarat government was the order passed.
    Please correct me if I am wrong.

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    The Constitution merely states that WITHIN the discretionary functions of the Governor, he/she can’t be questioned.

    The appointment of functionaries by a government is, to the best of my understanding, NOT a constitutionally discretionary function of a Governor.

    This is one of the most fundamental powers of any government. I gather (from a commentator on this blog) that the Governor refused to appoint a LokAyukta that Modi’s government had recommended.

    This arm wrestling for power by a Governor has effectively made it clear that the states are not independent elected bodies but are over-ridden by the central government. The Indian system has always had weak states but this case makes it a big issue. In my opinion, the Constitution may need to be revisited to explicitly allow States far greater powers than they currently seem to have.

    We need subsidiarity, not centralisation, in India.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.