ThePrint
comments
Comments by "" (@BharatThatIsIndia) on "As ex-CJI lights fire on basic structure of constitution, the law, politics, history u0026 implications" video.
33
6
@surajs5913 😂😂😂 First of all, I am neither passing a judgement nor placing my self above SC.
Simply, I am telling that a judge who took part in a case, that too of a molestation case against himself is not a judge to be heard of.
It is like a police officer will work on an FIR filed against him, a Politician deciding on his own Corruption case, etc.
SC might have declared him innocent, but he himself was looking after that case. It's great if you think that it was a good step. And Looking at your comment, you will ask if der is any law, article, etc to prohibit him from overlooking on that bench. So no, there is no law. But again, no one thought that people sitting on such a high post would do something like that.
Now Basic Structure Doctrine. First of all, did you watch this video before asking this? Everyone knows that it is not written in words in the constitution but deprived of it by SC. It has been there for 50 years now. Quoted in many judgments.
Now give me one example of any BJP leader, any RSS leader even speaking even once against this before 2024.
I think in the last 25 years or after 1980, no congress leader has spoken against it. All have accepted it.
Basic Structure is like the Soul of Human beings. Have you ever seen Soul? Do you believe in Hinduism? Do you have a Soul?
Der is few things which is non changeable in a democracy, like Freedom of people, jobs , religion, etc. Basic Structure is a word for explaining all these with one line.
But I know, you know this. 😉
Only a person whose view on people's freedom, Liberty changes with change in government, will think like that.
The person will even give up his/ her freedom for the sake of his support for a particular kind of government.
5
4
3
3
2
2
@surajs5913 Now I am amused.
I think you have difficulty in understanding my basic point.
Let me explain again and for the last time.
1. My main point is about those 2 persons who have raised issues against Basic Structure Doctrine. For me they are not the ideal person for that as they have not followed simple constitutional morality during der tenure in high offices.
2. Many examples of are quoted in these videos where Basic Structure Doctrine and these 2 persons were involved as part of der capacity as Judge and lawyers. They never have issues before and it is to do with der current benefits from the Government.
3. About Basic Structure written somewhere. If you have seen that video itself, everyone is saying that it is not written anywhere in the constitution but it is coming from the constitution and the discussion in the constitution. Any democracy should have those.
4. You have a judicial overreach issue and Basic Structure is left ambiguous by judges to have ultimate authority of SC to undermine parliament.
So first of all, SC is the ultimate authority to decide over the constitutionality of any law passed by parliament. It is as per constitution and yes , it is written.
Now judges don't take refuge in Basic Structure in most cases. If tomorrow, parliament says that people cannot follow der religion or they do not have rights to vote or they do not have the right to have a peaceful gathering, etc. How SC will hold those rights and protect the people rights without certain doctrine which tells that this part of the constitution cannot be changed?
Then a 2/3 majority government can change anything in the constitution and make India a non democratic country.
For me, Basic Structure simply means, why this constitution was made l, why we took part in the freedom struggle, what rights people in a democracy have, are we going to live in the past or are we going to move forward, etc.
5. About Socialist and Secular - India or Indian constitution is not secular just bcz Indira Gandhi amended the constitution. The constitution as a whole is secular. State cannot have a religion. This is in constitution.
Socialist part, I don't think India was ever socialist and hence it didn't become the one by putting it in constitution preamble. I agree with you here. But after that in 1977 when it was amended again, no party opposed it. From then till date, no one tried to change it. And Basic Structure Doctrine is coming from Keshvanand Bharati case which is dated back to 1973 and was prior to 1976, 42nd amendment which put these words in preamble. So it will be interesting to see how SC will decide on this. Bcz Preamble was changed after the judgement.
But, and the Big But is, in 1977-78 by 44th amendment most of Indira Gandhi changes are removed but not the one done in preamble.
After that both major parties along with most of the current political parties were in power in Centre and noone tried to amend it. So it csn be safely assume that it was accepted by all. It was safe to assume after 44th amendment itself.
But it will be interesting if someone will file a case in SC for this. I think, Secular will never be removed bcz it is the voice of constitution.
But socialist is not the way our constitution wanted us to go ahead. And the debate you are quoting, Ambedkar said that we should not force our next generation to follow one way of economic model. It will be der choice to choose the correct path fir themselves .
6. If the government thinks Basic structure is not defined properly, they can bring a constitutional amendment bill. They can have a discussion in parliament. SC will look into that and they can add, remove, suggest a few things and it can be defined. If you want a physical entity, you can have like that. I don't think, anyone will have any issues with that.
But your argument that Basic structure doesn't exist is like saying soul doesn't exist.
Or Saying Bharat Maata Doesn't exist. Obviously Bharat Mata is not a Devi in white Saari. It is also not the land between the Himalaya and The Indian Ocean.
Bcz if tomorrow, lets say something happens and the entire world goes down under sea and new land mass appears somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.
And if we go and live there, we will call that place "Bharat". Even if those who are born on that ship and never lived on this land will call that Bharat. It is not a physical entity but an emotional, social, cultural thing.
If you watch any movie, read any book, you don't carry the entire book every time with you. U understand what this book is trying to say and if you remove that basic item from that Book then that book becomes irrelevant.
Example - if you remove Death of Daughter in law and the poverty of father and son in "Kafan" by premchand, then the story doesn't exist. Or if you remove Ram ji "Maryada" from Ramayana, the whole book becomes useless, even though the entire book is such a great work of literature.
Again, if your whole point is to have a definition of Basic Structure, then I can agree with that. You can raise this concern and even file a case in SC for the same.
But if you think that bcz it is not physically written and hence doesn't exist then I am sorry my friend. I can just feel pity you.
This is my last comment here because I think I don't have anything else to tell you about this.
Enjoy..
2
1
1
1