The Kerala High Court had banned bundhs which were observed by different political parties and different organizations to air their defiance to some act or situation, or some issue affecting their lives in social, economic, political, or in their religious beliefs or rights. This deterrent act of the Court came in the wake of innumerable difficulties faced by the Common man against the tyranny of a few, who foisted a bundh on citizens. This was a weapon that should be sparingly used, as in a democratic country like India, “Freedom of Expression” was a paramount virtue and a fundamental right. The Principle of natural justice is to be applied with the Rule of Law and not in isolation.
The political parties had called the step draconian and challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and observed that Freedom of Speech, movement and Expression, did not mean when one’s exercise of this right should collide with the same Rights of the others. In the wake of the Judgment, they began to call for ‘hartals’ (which is a synonym for bundh). However, they termed call for hartals (changed bundh to hartal) which was total more due to fear even though they were not supportive of the reason for the ‘hartal’. The Governments, who are supposed to uphold the Rule of Law, and protect the citizens and allow their free movement without let or hindrance, if they themselves became the Law breakers, then who will respect the Law? People who make Laws should respect the very same Law, if they expect the people to obey the same, in letter and spirit.
Recently, based on a judgment of the Kerala High Court banning roadside meetings, the Government in power in Kerala and some of the important leaders of the Party held open roadside meetings and condemned the judgment and criticized the judges who had held roadside meetings illegal as it breached the Principle of Natural Justice. The Government contended that the Court should have heard the State before passing such a ban order. The Chief Minister in a report said that they were only commenting on the Judgment, which was fair, and decedent and was not aimed at criticizing judiciary. The CM also recalled that in a democracy, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, held equal powers under the Constitution, and worked for the welfare of the people. The Kerala Government, he was quoted as saying, had the high regard for judiciary and the judiciary should reciprocate the same attitude.
The first bench of the Kerala High Court told the Advocate General that it was disturbed by the remarks made by the various leaders of the Ruling party against the judgment of the Court banning wayside rallies and meetings. The bench recalled that hartal or bundh by whatever name it was called was banned by the High Court and the Supreme Court had put its stamp of approval. So any hartal called by anybody was violative and did not have legal sanctity, and therefore, illegal. An illegal act committed by anybody how so ever high, cannot be legally tenable. Further, leaders bemoaning the judiciary and their comments receiving wide publicity are a cause of concern, the bench noted. A Judge of the Supreme Court (K K Mathew Memorial Law Lecture series on the ‘Role of Judiciary in Democratic India’) came down heavily on people who used intolerant language and attributed bias against the Judiciary was tantamount to degrading the Constitution pillars. “Judgments were not above criticism and any judgment could be subject to constructive criticism at an academic and intellectual level. Judges who passed judgments cannot be subjected to unfair criticism, abuse and ridicule just because one did not agree with the judgment. The Constitution provides for revision of judgments and the aggrieved parties should take recourse to such avenues, felt the Judge of the Supreme Court in the course of his address.
The Chief Minister, Kerala is said to have stated that when Indira Gandhi was unseated by a Judge of theAllahad High Court on the basis of election petition by late Shri Raj Narain, the then Government declared internal emergency. According to the Chief Minister, Shri V R Krishna Iyer, the Judge who unseated her was attacked by Rajiv Gandhi’s (later corrected t as Sanjiv Gandhi’s) goons. It was Justice Jagan Mohan Sinha, of the Allahabad High Court who delivered the judgment on the election petition Raj Narain Vs Indira Gandhi. The matter went on appeal to the Supreme Court which was on a vacation. Shri V R Krishna Iyer, who was the vacation judge in the Supreme Court, heard the arguments of Nani Palkhiwala and Shanti Bushan and stayed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court with the condition that she shall not vote, shall not sign the Lok Sabha attendance register and she would not be entitled to any sitting fees. There was no attack on Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s residence as indicated by the CM. As a matter of fact, if Justice V R Krishna Iyer had not stayed the Allahabad High Court judgment, Ms Gandhi had no other option but to resign and the Emergency proclamation would not have come about..
Coming back to the Court’s judgment, the Court had upheld the movement of any citizen against collective mob blocking the free movement of that individual by holding a street rally. Your freedom and my freedom end at the tip of our noses. To block one’s freedom in the name of natural justice is against the fundamental principle of Law. If a person breaks the Law, he is prosecuted by the State. If the State breaks the Law, there is only the Law of the Jungle.
It is suggested that the three reservoirs of the Constitution exercise maximum restraint, and work in tandem so as to preserve, protect Indian democracy.
The political parties had called the step draconian and challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and observed that Freedom of Speech, movement and Expression, did not mean when one’s exercise of this right should collide with the same Rights of the others. In the wake of the Judgment, they began to call for ‘hartals’ (which is a synonym for bundh). However, they termed call for hartals (changed bundh to hartal) which was total more due to fear even though they were not supportive of the reason for the ‘hartal’. The Governments, who are supposed to uphold the Rule of Law, and protect the citizens and allow their free movement without let or hindrance, if they themselves became the Law breakers, then who will respect the Law? People who make Laws should respect the very same Law, if they expect the people to obey the same, in letter and spirit.
Recently, based on a judgment of the Kerala High Court banning roadside meetings, the Government in power in Kerala and some of the important leaders of the Party held open roadside meetings and condemned the judgment and criticized the judges who had held roadside meetings illegal as it breached the Principle of Natural Justice. The Government contended that the Court should have heard the State before passing such a ban order. The Chief Minister in a report said that they were only commenting on the Judgment, which was fair, and decedent and was not aimed at criticizing judiciary. The CM also recalled that in a democracy, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, held equal powers under the Constitution, and worked for the welfare of the people. The Kerala Government, he was quoted as saying, had the high regard for judiciary and the judiciary should reciprocate the same attitude.
The first bench of the Kerala High Court told the Advocate General that it was disturbed by the remarks made by the various leaders of the Ruling party against the judgment of the Court banning wayside rallies and meetings. The bench recalled that hartal or bundh by whatever name it was called was banned by the High Court and the Supreme Court had put its stamp of approval. So any hartal called by anybody was violative and did not have legal sanctity, and therefore, illegal. An illegal act committed by anybody how so ever high, cannot be legally tenable. Further, leaders bemoaning the judiciary and their comments receiving wide publicity are a cause of concern, the bench noted. A Judge of the Supreme Court (K K Mathew Memorial Law Lecture series on the ‘Role of Judiciary in Democratic India’) came down heavily on people who used intolerant language and attributed bias against the Judiciary was tantamount to degrading the Constitution pillars. “Judgments were not above criticism and any judgment could be subject to constructive criticism at an academic and intellectual level. Judges who passed judgments cannot be subjected to unfair criticism, abuse and ridicule just because one did not agree with the judgment. The Constitution provides for revision of judgments and the aggrieved parties should take recourse to such avenues, felt the Judge of the Supreme Court in the course of his address.
The Chief Minister, Kerala is said to have stated that when Indira Gandhi was unseated by a Judge of theAllahad High Court on the basis of election petition by late Shri Raj Narain, the then Government declared internal emergency. According to the Chief Minister, Shri V R Krishna Iyer, the Judge who unseated her was attacked by Rajiv Gandhi’s (later corrected t as Sanjiv Gandhi’s) goons. It was Justice Jagan Mohan Sinha, of the Allahabad High Court who delivered the judgment on the election petition Raj Narain Vs Indira Gandhi. The matter went on appeal to the Supreme Court which was on a vacation. Shri V R Krishna Iyer, who was the vacation judge in the Supreme Court, heard the arguments of Nani Palkhiwala and Shanti Bushan and stayed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court with the condition that she shall not vote, shall not sign the Lok Sabha attendance register and she would not be entitled to any sitting fees. There was no attack on Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s residence as indicated by the CM. As a matter of fact, if Justice V R Krishna Iyer had not stayed the Allahabad High Court judgment, Ms Gandhi had no other option but to resign and the Emergency proclamation would not have come about..
Coming back to the Court’s judgment, the Court had upheld the movement of any citizen against collective mob blocking the free movement of that individual by holding a street rally. Your freedom and my freedom end at the tip of our noses. To block one’s freedom in the name of natural justice is against the fundamental principle of Law. If a person breaks the Law, he is prosecuted by the State. If the State breaks the Law, there is only the Law of the Jungle.
It is suggested that the three reservoirs of the Constitution exercise maximum restraint, and work in tandem so as to preserve, protect Indian democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment