Dr. Man Mohan Singh ji,

Hon'ble Prime Minister of India,


APPLICATION: Union of India should send Presidential Reference under 
Article 143 of the Constitution of India to decide that "Supreme 
Court and Judges of the Supreme Court are covered within the ambit of 
the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.


Hon'ble Sir,


If, I am not wrong, during Your Excellency's tenure as Finance 
Minister of India in my capacity as Honorary General Secretary of 
Indian Council of Small Industries (ICSI), I along with its President 
Late Shri S. S. Singhania met Your Excellency for more than seven 
times in New Delhi or Kolkata including Pre-budget discussions and 
seen that Your Excellency means true business without any fear or 
favour. Therefore, I hope that matter relates greater public 
interests, referred herein would be considered seriously.


With reference to my Letter dated 25th February, 2005 (copy 
enclosed), I would like to submit that Constituent Assembly of India 
armed with the untrammeled Powers and Authority to Supreme Court 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to ensure "REMEDY". 
During the debate in the Constituent Assembly of India held on 
Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 9th December, 1948, the 
(First Speaker of Lok Sabha) Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar 
interalia says that "If the fundamental rights of the individual are 
left to the tender mercies of the Government of the day, they cannot 
be called fundamental rights at all". Founding father of the 
Constitution Dr. B. R. Ambedkar concluded the debate interalia saying 
that: "… there can be no right unless the Constitution provides a 
remedy for it. It is the remedy that makes a right real. If there is 
no remedy, there is no right of all, and I am therefore not prepared 
to burden the Constitution with a number of pious declarations which 
may sound as glittering generalities but for which the Constitution 
makes no provision by way of a remedy. It is much better to be 
limited in the scope of our rights and to make them real by 
enunciating remedies than to have a lot of pious wishes embodied in 
the Constitution. I am very glad that this House has seen that the 
remedies that we have provided constitute a fundamental part of this 
Constitution.)". None of the speakers / members of the Constituent 
Assembly objected such observations. While as on today Founding 
Fathers such aspirations has been doomed.


Whether we admit or not, facts remains that today public debate 
exists on the issue of the Accountability of the Judiciary, which 
suddenly exposed through recent controversy between Judiciary and 
Legislature. In view of the Supreme Court's own observations, Supreme 
Court Judges should be more accountable. 


I am firm view that Accountability of the Judges of the Supreme Court 
should be exclusively before the Judiciary itself, without any kind 
of interference from the Legislature. 


During the course of several years, knowingly or unknowingly, Supreme 
Court reduced its efficacy enshrined under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, after wrong interpretation of the "State" under Article 
12 of the Constitution, as was lastly appeared in last 3 lines of 
Para 7 of the Judgment dated 10th April 2002, 388-428 SCC (2002) 4 
SCC that "It may be further noted that the superior courts of justice 
do not fall within the ambit of State or other authorities under 
Article 12 of the Constitution". Resultantly, mindset of the Supreme 
Court gradually but slowly started to shift from its responsibility 
as a Guardian, Guarantor and Watchdog-Protector of the rights 
guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution as held by Six Judge 
Bench (AIR:1950,Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, 
Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), that: "The Supreme Court is 
thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, 
and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, 
refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against 
infringement of such rights" towards complete negative directions 
that "………… it is a settled position in law that no judicial order 
passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to 
violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III", in 
spite of the fact that by Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 (388-426 
(2002) 4 SCC) Supreme Court observed interalia under Para 23 
that "These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by 
this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal 
of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either 
without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural 
justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which 
resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of 
justice to an aggrieved person" and also at Para 62 that "does it, 
however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court 
depicts that the same stands in violation of natural justice 
adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the 
same depicts manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of 
justice".


Such interpretation of the "State" was held without considering that 
Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the Constitutional Authority, 
i.e. President of India and can be removed by the another 
Constitutional Authority i.e. Parliament of India and such removing 
Authority i.e. Parliament of India admittedly covered within the 
ambit of the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 
Such wrong interpretation was held to justify application of the 
principle of finality of the Order of the Supreme Court (Nine Judge 
Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment), which was decided 
without considering that it may change the ambit and may effect 
efficacy of the Article 32 of the Constitution and may allow Supreme 
Court Judges to pass orders "either without jurisdiction or in 
violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair 
procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the 
process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved 
person,". 


In fact through such interpretation of the "State" Supreme Court 
changed the meaning, scope, ambit of Article 12 and reduced efficacy 
of Article 32 of the Constitution, beyond the Constitutional 
provisions that Supreme Court or Judges of the Supreme Court cannot 
be beyond the ambit of the "State" under Article 12 of the 
Constitution.


I must made it ample clear that even after Supreme Court or Judges of 
the Supreme Court would be hold within the ambit of the "State" under 
Article 12 of the Constitution, the Powers or Authority of the 
Supreme Court under Article 13 or 32 of the Constitution, being part 
of basic structure of the Constitution cannot be effected. 


I confident, that once such issue is decided, Supreme Court would 
evolve some mechanism to ensure "REMEDY" and prevent orders without 
jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or 
under any unfair procedure, which may giving scope for bias which 
resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of 
justice to an aggrieved person.


Therefore this is my Humble Submissions that Union of India should 
send Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of 
India to Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide that "Supreme Court and 
Judges of the Supreme Court are covered within the ambit of 
the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India". 


With Regards,

Yours truly,




(Milap Choraria)

Dated 17th March 2005

Convenor: Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085


Moderator: Yahoo Discussion Group: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAP_INDIA


C.C. to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti, and Hon'ble 
Attorney-General of India Mr. Milon Banerjee. 







- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Internet and Democracy Across Asia:              MAY 2001
Online Trends in Governance, Civil Society and Media
More information at:  http://www.e-democracy.org/do
Rule: No more than two posts a day per participant.

To SUBSCRIBE, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/do-asia/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to