Comments by "suraj s" (@surajs5913) on "As ex-CJI lights fire on basic structure of constitution, the law, politics, history u0026 implications" video.

I am reminded of what Dr. Ambedkar said ib constituent assembly debates regarding the inclusion of the word 'socialist' in the preamble of the constitution - that whether the economy must be socialist or capitalist is for the people of each generation to decide during there time. Defining a basic structure is the imposition of the will of past generations on the present generation. Using a undefined arbitrary basic structure doctrine is the imposition of the will of the judiciary on the nation...
10
So you are basically attacking the persons involved because you have no arguments to counter their opinions?
4
@cosmicheathen1955 i really dont think that os the case, seeing how many checks and balances are built into the constitution and the state machinery of India. As for destruction of fundamentals of institutions, that is a debatable subjective opinion that you hold...
3
@BharatThatIsIndia you have placed yourself above the supreme court and already declared who is rapist and who isnt. Arun Jaitley was a great lawyer and parlimentarian. But I have just one question to demolish your entire argument on basic structure - which articles and which clauses of the constitution form the basic structure of the constitution (making them inalterable by parliment) as per the supreme court?
2
@BharatThatIsIndia Again you resort to an Ad Hominem response because you cannot win solely on the strength of your argument. That is why you have to go so far as declare youe assumptions about me as some god given knowledge instead of talking plain facts and directly addressing the arguments raised by me. As regards to the soul in Hinduism, the Atman is defined in the Bhagavad Gita by process of elimination - that the Atman is not the body, not the mind, it does not live , does not die, etc. Has the basic structure of the constitution ever been defined in any concrete manner or does its definition need only the same level of abstract definition of the Atman as given in the Bhagavad Gita? Has the judiciary in its past many decades defined which parts of the constitution can be amended by the parliment and do not belong to the basic structure? No, the basic structure doctrine has been left willfully ambiguous by the judiciary that acts as the ultimate authority to interpret the constitution. The exercise of interpreting the basic structure has never been carried out to its fullest - leaving scope for future generations to arbitrarily extend the limits of the basic structure to cancel legislation done by the parliment. This entire phenomenon was described aptly by Arun Jaitley who said it was " the rule of the selected (judges) instead of the elected (parliment)". But you want to bring metaphysical arguments of the soul into the interpretation of a constitution of an India that follows the principle of secularism (i deliberately use the word secularism instead of secular). The fact that you have to resort to metaphysics to try to justify(and fail spectacularly) the basic structure of the constitution just shows how futile your efforts are. I dont care if bjp never raised the issue or if congress have accepted the doctrine. Neither of those things addresses my fundamental question. Does anyone kbow Which parts of the constitution constitute the basic structure? More importantly, how can it be ensured that the basic steucture doctrine is not used in a arbitrary manner so than the powers of legislature are not arbitrarily curtailed by the judiciary? And finally, if the basic structure is going to be defined in the future, on what basis will it be defined? BR Ambedkar argued against including the words "socialist" and "secular" into the preamble of the constitution - an opinion to which the constituent assembly had concurred with. Would it be right to declare the current preamble as part of the basic structure after Indira Gandhi added those two words under her autocratic rule? Now that kapil sibal is arguing for article 370 restoration in jammu kashmir, on what basis will it be decided whether article 370 was or was not a part of basic structure ? These are the real life instances of judicial confusiom created by the judiciary by declaring a basic structure doctrine but not defining which all parts come under said doctrine.... Any answer regarding the basic structure doctrine also needs to pass the test of common sense. Until then, calling names or trying to perform character assassination may work against others, but not against people with common sense. You have no logical arguments to make and i dont need to know or assume your political ideology to make my arguments clear...
2
Just remember - Year of dissloving of constituent assembly of India - 1950 Year when 1st amendment of constitution was done - 1951 Year when the first general assembly elections were held - 1951 Meanwhile nehru had become the prime minister of tge dominion of India in 1947, 5 years before the first parlimentary elections...
2
Were you in the room watching the crime or is your judgement clouded by your politics?
2
@BharatThatIsIndia bhai your ability to create imaginary arguments in my stead and then counter those arguments to make yourself seem victorious - that ability is something few people possess and even fewer would covet. Best example of the arbitrary application of the basic structure doctrines is the places of worship act (1991). Previous judicial orders themselves claimed that the places of worship act upheld secularism and since secularism is a part of the basic structure of the constitution, the legislation was valid. Now petitions regarding the same act have been filed to the same judiciary demanding that the act violates the right of citizens to seek the refuge of the law. So the validity of the places of worship act is being challenged on the same grounds of basic steucture doctrine which was used by the judiciary to earlier endorse the act. The judiciary at that time did not analyse whether the places of worship act itself prohibits the right of the citizen to seek refuge in the law would be curtailed in a arbitrary manner by the very places of worship act. I never claimed that only one side of the political spectrum is capable of using or misusing either the law or the constitution. I do claim that as long as the basic structure is not clearly defined its application will be arbitrary and erroneous - at times even outright illogical. For example if one part of the basic structure may contradict with another part of the basic structure of the same constitution (as seen with the places of worship act), then which aspect of the basic structure deserves precedence over the other? How can this be even known unless the basic structure is not clearly defined? I am not out to villify the entire judiciary but i am not blind or oblivious to all its defects either. But you have no argument to make. If you have some argument from the above video then say it clearly or specify the timestamp. Otherwise everyone will see that the only arguments you can win are the imaginary arguments that you make on my behalf without my consent...
1
@BharatThatIsIndia so basically you agree that the basic structure doctrine is an undefined doctrine as opposed to other examples set clearly in writing like the fundamental rights? Assuming acceptance of one policy by anyone, simply because it has not been challenged it is a leap of logic i am incapable of. Politically speaking the central government has been drifting away from socialism since 1991 - does that mean that they have accepted socialism? A more logical assumption would be that the central government are creating an environment for people to acknowledge that socialism is not the fundamental charecteristic of the Republic of India - such a practise takes decades but is ongoing now. You can use any number of fanciful artistic and metaphysical examples. But you are yet to acknowledge that the unwillingness of the judiciary to define (in a legally binding definitive manner) the basic structure will lead to a myriad of problems down the road. The court cannot even define from when the basic structure doctrine is applicable - because if they choose 1947 then even the 1st amendment done under nehru may get challenged. If any date after 1952 is chosen then people will criticise the arbitrary choosing of the date. Your arguments were from the very start mere attacks on the character of 2 parlimentarians. But fact of the matter is that even you cannot deny the sheer amount of confusion created by the basic structure doctrine. Instead you have to resort to metaphysical mumbo jumbo - even then you are forced to accept that the basic structure doctrine in its current form carries a lot of potential for contradictions - and hence is a debateble topic. It is because the topic is devateble that we are engaged in this debate. Gogoi statement is not whether the doctrine exists or not, it is whether it is consistent and deterministic or a debateble aspect... So in the end you have reaffirmed the opinion of people you despise so much...
1
@n______n26 was he elected by people when he enforced the 1st amendment ? Will you use the same logic with modi? Will you say that since modi was elected before and after the 2002 riots, that means that his mandling of the riots were satisfactory? Or will you say that because modi was elected in 2019, the constitutionality of either scrapping article 370 or passing delhi ordinance bill is irrelevant?
1
@mg.f.9023 yes, same argument can be made - it is for the law to decide who is guilty or innocent, not the individual.
1
@mg.f.9023 i can say the same for political criticism of bjp and supporters of hindutva who were labelled as terrorists (remember RSS ki saazish after 26/11), cowdung sanghi, and more recently the tag of fascist. Fact of the matter is that no matter what names you call, what narratives you build, what conspirasies you claim (the bjp does all of the above too) you lack the support of the masses. Irrespective of your ranting or my reply, they will decide what they want or who they want. All your arguments are political arguments and all of them are addressed in the voting booth (assuming voting booth is not seized by TMC goons)....
1
@mg.f.9023 as do I - the bjp lost popular vote in karnataka despite only marginally losing their voter percentage. The bjp is not undefeatable or perfect and modi is no god either. If the people dont like the bjp, they will be voted out of power like in karnataka. Remember that after 2024 election result comes out ..
1