Delhi Confidential: Matching Barricades
After the new Parliament building was inaugurated in 2023, the Parliament House complex has seen a range of new features — from landscaping to relocation of statues to new uniforms for staff. Soon, visitors to the complex would get to see 'aesthetically pleasing' barricades in place of the usual ones placed by the security. The CPWD has designed the barricades to match the look of the new building, in the same red sandstone colour and cast iron design mimicking the jaalis inside. The triangular Parliament building will be displayed at the centre of it.
Now that the government has announced that there is no special session to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Emergency declaration, the BJP is considering a plan to conduct mock parliament sessions across the country. Party sources said there is a suggestion that mock sessions showing how Parliament passed the 42nd amendment of the Constitution — during the Emergency to centralise power and curtail judiciary — should be conducted in every district. The controversial remarks made during the debate, including the one made by Congress leader C M Stephen daring the courts to defy Parliament (he had said 'I don't know whether they (courts) will have the temerity to defy this Parliament. If they do it, we have our machinery) will be played in the mock parliament sessions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with LA protests, must return control
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. US District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump overstepped his bounds in ordering the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles after protests erupted over the immigration crackdown. It was not immediately clear how that would change the situation on the ground. California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued to block the Guard's deployment against his wishes. California later filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the Guard from assisting with immigration raids. He argued that the troops were originally deployed to protect federal buildings and wanted the court to block the troops from helping protect immigration agents during the raids, saying that involving the Guard would only escalate tensions and promote civil unrest. In a broad ruling, the judge determined Trump had not properly called the Guard up in the first place. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, speaking in an interview with The Associated Press and one other media outlet, said that as of Wednesday about 500 of the Guard troops have been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations. Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials. Sherman is commander of Task Force 51, which is overseeing the Guard troops and Marines sent to Los Angeles. Earlier in the day Breyer said he intended to rule quickly. 'This country was founded in response to a monarch, and the Constitution is a document of limitations. I'm trying to figure out where the lines are drawn,' the judge said before a packed courtroom.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Maharashtra's Public Security Bill diluted but critics not convinced
MUMBAI: The special panel set up to deliberate on the controversial Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, has decided to dilute some of the provisions – but is it enough? The decision to amend the objective of the bill and a few of its provisions was taken by a joint select committee after more than 12,300 objections were raised by civil society groups and social organisations to the draft legislation, which aims at curbing 'urban Naxal' activities. Giving the state sweeping powers to clamp down on Naxal or leftist activities, the bill has been opposed by civil society as repressive and anti-people. Its opponents claim it could be misused by the state to silence dissent and target entities critical of the government – activities that fall outside the purview of Naxalism. The 26-member committee, comprising legislators from across political parties, has amended the objective of the bill, to ensure that individuals cannot be prosecuted under the proposed act; only organisations can be booked under its provisions. The second change in the objective is in the nature of the activity that can fall under the purview of the proposed legislation – the panel has amended its definition from 'unlawful activities' to 'unlawful leftist or hardline activities'. Accordingly, the committee has amended the objective of the bill from 'to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organizations' to '…unlawful activities of leftist and hardline organisations'. 'The earlier draft was perceived to have allowed for arbitrary action against any individual who took a stand against the government or constitutional entities. Changing how the objective of the bill is phrased gives a general sense that the legislation intends to act against organisations involved in unlawful activities linked to Naxalism,' an official said. The panel has also clarified that retrospective action cannot be taken against any individual for any past association with an organisation banned under the new law, he added. The joint select committee decided on the changes after their fourth meeting on Thursday. A revised draft is expected to be tabled during the monsoon session of the state legislature, beginning on June 30. The committee has also made changes in the advisory board, which would approve the action and investigation against entities being prosecuted under the new law. While the original draft bill provided for a senior law officer to head the board, it is now made mandatory to have a retired high court judge heading the board. The panel has also changed the rank of the officer who would investigate cases under the proposed law – from a police sub-inspector to a police officer of the rank of assistant superintendent of police. Significantly, though, the committee has not withdrawn the word 'urban Naxal' from the objectives of the bill. State BJP chief and revenue minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule, who heads the committee, said, 'Similar bills enacted by states such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have shown good results. It will be an effective deterrent to attracting youth to Naxalism by poisoning their minds.' Nationalist Congress Party (SP) legislator and member of the joint select committee, Jitendra Awhad said, 'Initially we had opposed the act as it appeared to be anti-people, but now it has been diluted. The new provisions are against actual Naxal and Maoist activities.' Shashikant Shinde of the NCP-SP said, 'A presentation was made by the JSC chairman to show why it was necessary to bring in an additional law. We were assured that the words 'left wing extremist and hardliners' in the draft relates only to unlawful activities by organisations linked to Naxalism, and not individuals. We have also demanded that organisations who had submitted their objections be invited for a hearing. We have not yet given the go-ahead to the new draft.' The bill, tabled in July last year after the Lok Sabha elections, was sent to the joint select committee in December. The revised draft is expected to be finalised at the committee's final meeting on June 25. Civil society organisations are not impressed with the changes. They say there is still a lot left to interpretation and the potential for misuse remains unchanged. Ulka Mahajan, state convenor of the Bharat Jodo Andolan, said they will continue to oppose the bill. 'We suspect the bill intends to suppress the voice of the people opposing the government. If they say it will act against leftist and hardline organisations, it means it will be used against opposition parties. Who is to stop the government from linking the Bharat Jodo with frontal organisations of Naxals? And what about their own right-wing organisations? We will hold a protest on the first day of the monsoon session of the legislature.'
