Only the Attorney General (AG) and such other ‘yesmen’ of the government appear quite unhappy and resentful as the court order has restored the independence of judiciary.
The amendment was passed with an unholy motive to use the higher judiciary to serve the political purpose of the government on use of threat of impeachment of Judges instead of allowing them to work freely to protect people’s fundamental rights and liberties as enshrined in the Constitution.
The judgment has saved the apex court from working under threat and established the basic principle of the separation of power. We must say the Prime Minister has rightly understood the far-reaching ramification of the verdict and appreciated it although she was misled by vested quarters when the amendment was passed.
She also boasted during Monday’s cabinet meeting saying that the verdict proved the country’s judiciary is independent and asked colleagues not to publicly express negative opinion on the verdict.
But the anti-democratic forces around the seat of power who had misled her when the amendment was passed made no secret of their resentment to the court verdict. As AG Mahbubey Alam expressed his dismays over the judgment; it proved quite unbecoming on the part of the country’s Chief Law Officer. His reaction is most amazing. He seems to be unaware of his high position and had behaved more like a political supporter of the government.
Now that the verdict has dismissed the amendment, he claims that it has at best created a ‘vacuum’
He said it is the custom that when a new law is formulated through repealing a previous law and if the new law is challenged and scrapped by the SC, the earlier law will automatically come into force; that is SJC will be restored.
Why the AG is so critical about restoring the independence of judiciary is the big question. It cannot be a matter frustration for him and if he is a believer in the rule of law he should have been happy. He should have known that nowhere a unicameral Parliament so nakedly position itself as prosecutor and judge for impeaching judges of the highest court which is also the court for declaring any law passed by the Parliament to be unconstitutional and of has no legal effect.
It was a terrible mistake to include article 96 in the Constitution giving the unicameral Parliament the power of removing Supreme Court judges. The members of the Parliament will have the authority to remove the judges and so the judges of the Supreme Court pass days under constant fear of the members of the Parliament.
The law is not so simple in India. There the legal requirements are stringent so that the members cannot act whimsically. Our law was politically motivated to politically deny separation of powers through the backdoor. This is a situation of making the judiciary to be ineffective as a check against lawlessness of the government. Scandalisation and even victimisation of judges of the highest court politically will be too easy for our national shame.
The AG in fact used all misleading arguments during the hearing on the government appeal and court hearing of amicus curiae on the amendment and now his resentment over the verdict proves he is using his position politically.
When he said he was sad over the Supreme Court verdict it showed lack of respect to the highest court.
Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha has said Article 70 of the Constitution debar MPs from voting out of party line. A unicameral Parliament where MPs are not allowed to vote independently has made Parliament not the right place to impeach judges, he said in remarks in the verdict. .
Law Minister Anisul Haque was surprised saying the Supreme Judicial Council was set up under a previous military ruler; it can’t claim to be a fair step that need careful review. The government will decide next course of action after receiving the full text of the verdict. But the Minister proved ignorant of the fact that this amendment to the Constitution was made by an elected Parliament.
