DY Chandrachud, the former top justice of India, questioned whether 75 years was a short enough time to repeal Article 370, a "transitional provision."
In defense of his position on Article 370, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that the Constitution's "transitional provision" was always its intention.Questioning whether 75 years was a short enough time to repeal such a clause, he emphasized that it was intended to gradually disappear and become part of the Constitution.
In an interview, Chandrachud was answering a question from BBC journalist Stephen Sackur regarding the dissatisfaction of legal scholars with his position on Article 370.
On December 13, a Supreme Court Constitution panel led by Chandrachud unanimously affirmed the President's authority to repeal Article 370 in August 2019.
As a result of this decision, the full-fledged state of Jammu and Kashmir lost its special privileges and was reorganized into two union territories.
"The Constitution's Article 370 guaranteed the autonomy and special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had existed since the beginning of the modern state of India," Chandrachud was questioned. You concurred that Article 370 might be repealed by the government. Because they believed you had violated the Constitution, many legal scholars were quite dissatisfied with your decision.told me why you made the choice that you did.
Stephen Sackur also asked how legal experts believed the ruling did not respect the Constitution.
According to Chandrachud, a judge who wrote a judgment in the Article 370 case is not allowed to defend or criticize their own rulings. He explained that Article 370, which was initially included in the Constitution's transitional provisions, was intended to gradually disappear and become a part of the entire document.
Because I wrote one of the rulings in the case, judges are bound by their profession to refrain from defending or questioning their rulings. When Article 370 of the Constitution was first introduced, it was a part of a chapter called "transitional arrangements" or "transitional provisions." Later, it was dubbed "temporary and transitional provisions." As a result, when the Constitution was first drafted, it was assumed that the transitional provisions would eventually disappear and become part of the text as a whole. "Now is more than 75 years too short to revoke a transitional clause," Chandrachud retorted.
According to him, the Supreme Court recognized that it is permissible for the elected government to repeal a law intended to be transitory.
Additionally, he emphasized that the Supreme Court has established a deadline for the restoration of the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir.
We stated that if the elected government and the government answerable to the people adopt the position that the Center is rescinding what was essentially a transitional arrangement, then that is acceptable. Second, the Supreme Court declared that a deadline for the successful restoration of the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir must be established," he continued.
Although the full effects of his acts will not be felt until later, Chandrachud added that he had a well-defined plan during his time as Chief Justice.
According to him, he fulfilled his duties as the administrative head of the court while concentrating on rendering decisions that would realize the Constitution's transformational potential.
Speaking for myself, I had outlined a plan for the time I would serve as Chief Justice, but I suppose there would be many questions for future generations to answer. The first was, of course, regarding the verdicts I would render. In addition to being a judge, a Chief Justice is also the administrative leader of the Indian judiciary.Therefore, my first priority was to fully realize the Constitution's revolutionary potential in my rulings, which I think we attempted to achieve," Chandrachud stated.
He went on to say that citizens can now contact the court since access to justice has expanded during the previous 75 years. He emphasized that the Supreme Court is the last court of appeal and that it handles a variety of cases, including appeals.
Over the past 75 years, we have expanded access to justice, allowing every individual citizen to appear in court, which has led to a diversity of issues that we handle. In addition, you have to deal with honorary cases in appeals. The former CJI stated, "We are the last court of appeal as well.
Chandrachud disagreed when asked if the Indian judiciary is controlled by upper-caste, masculine, elite Hindus or if it has a dynasty problem.
He made the observation that more than half of the new hires entering our states are women, if you look at the lowest tiers of the Indian judiciary, the district judiciary, which is at the base of the pyramid. In many states, up to 60 or 70 percent of women are recruited.
He clarified that the state of the legal profession ten years ago is now reflected in the higher judiciary. The gender balance found in law schools is now mirrored at the lowest echelons of the Indian judiciary as a result of education, especially legal education, reaching women. There is a growing number of women entering the district judiciary, and these women will continue to advance in terms of gender balance," he stated.
0 Comments