New Delhi: Warning of judges working as “Super Parliament”, Vice President Jagdeep Dhikar on Thursday set a three -month timeline for the President to decide the bills referred to by the Governor from the Supreme Court.
He also questioned the validity of a three -member panel established by the apex court to see a large amount of cash discovery from the Delhi residence of High Court Judge Justice Justice Yashwant Verma, which was later returned to Allahabad HC from Delhi.
Speaking at the Valedictivity ceremony of the 6th Rajya Sabha Internship Program at the Vice President’s Enclave, Dhankhar said that the candidates need to declare their assets in any election, while “judges do not do so. Some do, do nothing”.
Show full article
He also talked about the Supreme Court’s last week’s decision, in which the court first set a three -month deadline for the President, which was to work on the bills sent to him by the Governor.
“So we have judges who will enact laws, who will do executive work, who will act as a super parliament, and there is absolutely no accountability because the land law does not apply to them,” said Dhankhar.
He said, “We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India, and on what basis?”
He also mentioned the Supreme Court on the orders of the Lokpal in January this year, which relates to the jurisdiction of the anti -corruption Lokpal to hear complaints against the High Court judges.
He said that judicial freedom is not a “protection” and “there is some kind of impregnable cover against investigation, investigation, investigation”.
“Institutions thrive with transparency, there with investigation,” he said.
Talking about the “imperfection” of the original structure theory, Dhankhar said, “Just imagine, we are being sold to these narratives at an important time because we do not ask questions. I want someone in the audience ask the question that ‘What happened to your basic structure theory in 1975 (when emergency was imposed by the emergency Indira Gandhi government)?
Also read: Judge Ro: VP Dhankhar praised CJI’s ‘transparency’, accepts calls for Kharge floor leaders
‘Insect’s can’
He questioned the validity of the investigation mechanism launched by the Supreme Court against Justice Verma, there is a lack of legal status, claiming the report submitted by the SC-appointed inquiry panel.
He said the cash was reportedly found at the night of March 14 and 15 at the residence of Justice Verma, but the incident did not come to light until a week later. “We have to ask ourselves questions: Is the delay worthy of explaining? Condonable? Does it not raise some fundamental questions?” He said.
The President of the Rajya Sabha said that it has been exceeding a month of the incident, and one has been asked to believe: “Even though it is a cans of insects, even though there are skeletons in the cupboard, (this) time is time to blow up. Its lid is the time to go out.
Dhankhar said that the immunity to judges from criminal prosecution is not part of the constitution, which only gives immunity to the President and the governors from prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that no FIR could be filed against a judge until the government “consults” the Chief Justice of India.
“So how has this immunity safe in a category beyond the law? Because it is felt in the minds of one and everyone. Every Indian, young and old are deeply concerned. If this incident happened at their house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now, it is not even a cattle car.”
On appointment of judges
Dhankhar also tampered with the mechanisms of the appointments of the judges. He mentioned Article 124 of the Constitution, stating that the judges of the Supreme Court would be appointed by the President after “consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts”.
In a series of decisions on the appointments of judges in the 1990s, the Supreme Court stated that despite the use of the word “counseling” used in relation to the appointments of judges, CJI would still have priority in judicial appointments.
However, Dhankhar said, “There is no consultation. There is no consensus. Consultation is counseling.”
He said Dr. in the constituent assembly. Bribedkar’s address was quoted as saying that Article 124 was being debated.
,[T]o The Chief Justice practically allow a veto on the appointment of judges, in fact the authority is to transfer the Chief Justice to which we are not ready to vest in the President or the day government. So I think it is also a dangerous proposal, “Dr. Ambedkar said.
Dr. Referring to Ambedkar’s speech, Dhikar said, “But in 1993, in the case of the second judge, the court will explain the consultation.
‘Executive rule by judiciary’
Dhankhar’s speech touched “executive rule” by judicial orders. He explained that when the government is elected by the people, it is accountable to the Parliament, and the government is accountable to the people. “But if this executive governance is by the judiciary, how do you ask questions? Who are you accountable in elections?” He asked.
Talking about the importance of the work of legislature, judiciary and executive in his own domain, Dhankhar said, “It is time for our three institutions – legislature, judiciary and executive.
He said, “Relationship between these three should be one of nutritious, pleasant, deep understanding and coordination, not a performance,” he said.
Talking about Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order required to do “complete justice” in any case, said, “Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, which is available for the judiciary 24 x 7,” he said.
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, accepted the provision to accept the bills that the Governor of Tamil Nadu did not agree.
Validity
Dhankhar, while investigating the Justice Verma case, raised several questions on the three-called committee, asking what the committee has validity and judicial rights.
“Is there a committee under the Constitution of India? Is this committee of three judges no approval under any law emanating from Parliament?” He asked in negative answering both questions.
Committee, he said, one can make a recommendation most.
He reported that a month has passed after the incident, and it is said that an investigation requires “conservation of speed, campaign and prevailing materials”.
“As a citizen of the country and there is a situation that I do, I am worried. Are we not reducing the rule of law? Are we not accountable to the ‘people’ who gave us the constitution?” Dhankhar asked.
(Edited by Ajit Tiwari)
Also read: VP Dhankhar revives the domestic NJAC vs. Collegium debate among Justice Verma Ro, Oppan is careful