Top court not superior to high court, both equal: Chief Justice in I-Day speech
The CJI also mentioned that a new full-fledged flag post will be ready at the Supreme Court before November 24, when Justice Surya Kant takes over as the Chief Justice of India. Calling Independence Day both a celebration and an act of remembrance, Justice Gavai spoke about historic struggles, including the 1855 Santhal 'Hul' rebellion, the 1857 uprising, Rani Laxmibai, Birsa Munda, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and the Champaran Satyagraha. He highlighted the sacrifices of thousands who stood against foreign rule and exploitation, uniting various sections of society.He paid tribute to reformers like Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule, who in the 19th century championed education for girls from marginalised communities, challenging caste hierarchies and societal hypocrisy.Quoting Mahatma Gandhi, he said, 'The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,' noting that the message still serves as a moral compass for politics, governance, and life.Justice Gavai remarked on the historic journey of the Santhal community, from leading the 1855 rebellion to having its daughter, President Droupadi Murmu, hold the highest constitutional office. He emphasised that building a just, equal, and inclusive India remains an unfinished work.He concluded by saying that it is the solemn duty of judges and lawyers not only to interpret the law, but to actively uphold and defend the fundamental values of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which form the bedrock of India's democracy.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
28 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Setting deadlines for president, governors can cause ‘constitutional disorder': Centre tells SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state Assemblies would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, PTI quoted the Centre as telling the Supreme Court. Such a move could lead to 'constitutional disorder', it added. The Centre's submission was in response to a notice issued by the Supreme Court on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set deadlines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills. A constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. In a written reply on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. He added: 'If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by the framers [of the Constitution].' The April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In his note, Mehta argued that the positions of governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through judicial interventions, he added. Challenging the April 8 ruling, Mehta said that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. 'Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit.' 'To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' Mehta added.
Hans India
28 minutes ago
- Hans India
Deadline for Prez, Guv will tilt power balance: Centre
New Delhi: Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. The positions of the Governor and Oresident are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said.
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Happy Independence Day: Booked your flight to US yet?' Reddit post questions celebration of India's ‘brain drain'
On the occasion of India's 79th Independence Day, a Reddit user questioned the celebration of India's 'brain drain'. The user wonders why we celebrate people of Indian-origin leading global companies. 'Many Indians take pride in the global achievements of people like Sundar Pichai (Google), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Arvind Krishna (IBM), Ajay Banga (World Bank), Leena Nair (Chanel), or Arvind Srinivasan (Perplexity AI). These names are often cited as proof of 'India's contribution to the world',' says the post. However, the user argues that most are no longer Indian citizens. They hold US or UK passports and their work strengthens those countries, not India. India has hundreds of medical colleges and thousands of graduates, but no Indian citizen has won a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Har Gobind Khorana, often claimed by India, was a US citizen, the user argues. India has only CV Raman in Physics and Rabindranath Tagore in literature. However, both achievements were nearly a century ago. According to the user, this raises the deeper question of why so many educated Indians leave for the West in large numbers. The Reddit user believes it is natural for Indians to feel proud when they see familiar names celebrated abroad. A part of the reason is India's colonial hangover. 'We often confuse 'Indian origin' with 'Indian citizen.' They may share roots, but their allegiance and contributions are tied to the countries they now call home,' the post says. 'Should we criticise these individuals? No. Their choices are personal and often pragmatic. But, should we unquestioningly celebrate their success as 'India's success'? Was leaving India the only choice left to them?' the user adds. The user gives the example of Perplexity's Arvind Srinivasan. The IIT Madras graduate born in Chennai lives in California. He has even said he 'still hasn't gotten' a US green card yet. The post ends on a sarcastic note about patriotism: 'Happy 79th Independence Day to our fellow IIT and AIIMS graduates — have you booked your flight to Britain or the US yet?' Many social media users reacted to the post. One of them believes, 'India doesn't have a merit culture' while another thinks, 'Only about 2% of Indians live abroad, meaning 98% are still here yet we remain incompetent.' 'Because people are fed up with day to day struggles, like scarcity of water, electricity, bribing to get even trivial things done at the offices. Once you land in the foreign countries as you mentioned, these things vanish and life becomes easy,' wrote a user who had been living in the US for the last 40 years.
