11-03-2006, 09:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>SC adamant on its verdict on 9th Schedule Law</b>Â <!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Pioneer News Service | New DelhiÂ
The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the tussle between the judiciary and Legislature on the Ninth Schedule Law in the Constitution<b> but took serious exception to the absence of Attorney General of India, who preferred to make his submissions through the Additional Solicitor General.</b>
"Does not the Attorney General have the courtesy to appear before the Bench on a matter of such importance that is continuing for the past five days," said Justice Arijit Pasayat, forming part of the nine-judge Bench, which concluded hearing in the case. The observation came when Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium stood up to present arguments on behalf of Attorney General Milon K Bannerjee.
<b>Justice Pasayat shot at Subramanium, "there is no concept of an attorney holder for AG," adding, "You are just a counsel and a counsel cannot appear for another counsel."</b>
Chief Justice YK Sabharwal who headed the Bench intervened at this point allowing Subramanium to proceed with his submissions.
Being the final day of arguments, the court sought to know from Subramanium whether judicial immunity for Acts placed under Ninth Schedule would exist of fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed. Subramanium argued<b> "by placing an Act under Ninth Schedule the remedy of fundamental rights is exhausted. But in the light of the 1973 Supreme Court decision introducing the 'basic structure' theory, there is scope for some fundamental rights to be considered as forming part of basic structure." </b>Review of laws on this ground can then be possible, he explained.
Noted constitutional law expert and petitioner's counsel Fali S Nariman strongly refuted the contentions given by the Centre. Wrapping up his arguments for the day, he stated, "fundamental rights are fundamental to the Constitution" for which reason, he added, "time has come to say that fundamental rights are not to be excluded from basic structure since it forms a concentric circle within the wider circle of basic structure."
He refuted the earlier argument given by Solicitor General stating that the 1973 SC verdict upheld judicial immunity granted under Ninth Schedule. The Solicitor had stated that majority among the 13-judge Bench upheld the validity of a constitutional amendment, which placed two Acts in the Ninth schedule. Nariman pointed out that the issue under consideration before the 13 judges was not regarding placing of Acts under the Ninth Schedule to keep judges' hands off. Instead, the issue under consideration was the scion of judicial review against the power of the Parliament to amend Constitution.
Stating the welfare of people to be the guiding principle for courts to review laws under the protective umbrella of Ninth Schedule, Nariman pointed out the vices in having a provision under Constitution providing Government liberty to keep any law far from adjudication by court.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent judgement. Congress and Commies were trying backdoor Emergency.
Its shame that current rulers are indulge in nonsense and trying to dilute fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
Pioneer News Service | New DelhiÂ
The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the tussle between the judiciary and Legislature on the Ninth Schedule Law in the Constitution<b> but took serious exception to the absence of Attorney General of India, who preferred to make his submissions through the Additional Solicitor General.</b>
"Does not the Attorney General have the courtesy to appear before the Bench on a matter of such importance that is continuing for the past five days," said Justice Arijit Pasayat, forming part of the nine-judge Bench, which concluded hearing in the case. The observation came when Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium stood up to present arguments on behalf of Attorney General Milon K Bannerjee.
<b>Justice Pasayat shot at Subramanium, "there is no concept of an attorney holder for AG," adding, "You are just a counsel and a counsel cannot appear for another counsel."</b>
Chief Justice YK Sabharwal who headed the Bench intervened at this point allowing Subramanium to proceed with his submissions.
Being the final day of arguments, the court sought to know from Subramanium whether judicial immunity for Acts placed under Ninth Schedule would exist of fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed. Subramanium argued<b> "by placing an Act under Ninth Schedule the remedy of fundamental rights is exhausted. But in the light of the 1973 Supreme Court decision introducing the 'basic structure' theory, there is scope for some fundamental rights to be considered as forming part of basic structure." </b>Review of laws on this ground can then be possible, he explained.
Noted constitutional law expert and petitioner's counsel Fali S Nariman strongly refuted the contentions given by the Centre. Wrapping up his arguments for the day, he stated, "fundamental rights are fundamental to the Constitution" for which reason, he added, "time has come to say that fundamental rights are not to be excluded from basic structure since it forms a concentric circle within the wider circle of basic structure."
He refuted the earlier argument given by Solicitor General stating that the 1973 SC verdict upheld judicial immunity granted under Ninth Schedule. The Solicitor had stated that majority among the 13-judge Bench upheld the validity of a constitutional amendment, which placed two Acts in the Ninth schedule. Nariman pointed out that the issue under consideration before the 13 judges was not regarding placing of Acts under the Ninth Schedule to keep judges' hands off. Instead, the issue under consideration was the scion of judicial review against the power of the Parliament to amend Constitution.
Stating the welfare of people to be the guiding principle for courts to review laws under the protective umbrella of Ninth Schedule, Nariman pointed out the vices in having a provision under Constitution providing Government liberty to keep any law far from adjudication by court.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent judgement. Congress and Commies were trying backdoor Emergency.
Its shame that current rulers are indulge in nonsense and trying to dilute fundamental rights of Indian citizens.