As ex-CJI lights fire on basic structure of constitution, the law, politics, history & implications
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ส.ค. 2023
- #CutTheClutter,
Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, now a nominated MP, made a very interesting point during the debate on the Modi government’s Delhi services law. He said the ‘basic structure doctrine’ - which renders some portions of the Constitution beyond amendment, and is the grounds on which some critics have challenged the law - has a very debatable jurisprudential basis.
As a judge, however, Gogoi had cited the basic structure doctrine and its wisdom in more than one judgment. In episode 1286 of #CutTheClutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta discusses the doctrine with ThePrint’s resident legal eagles - Legal/Courts Editor Bhadra Sinha and Assistant Editor Apoorva Mandhani. Tune in for an illuminating discussion on how the ‘basic structure doctrine’ evolved and what it means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@kumarakomlakeresortkerala
@pauljohnresortsandhotels
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch Cut The Clutter episode 318 on the Ayodhya verdict here : • Close reading of Ayodh...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the transcript of Ranjan Gogoi's full speech here : indianexpress.com/article/ind...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Narendra Modi's New York Times column here : www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/op...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive content, special privileges & more - Subscribe to ThePrint for Special benefits: theprint.in/subscribe/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connect with ThePrint
» Subscribe to ThePrint: theprint.in/subscribe/
» Subscribe to our TH-cam Channel: bit.ly/3nCMpht
» Like us on Facebook: / theprintindia
» Tweet us on Twitter: / theprintindia
» Follow us on Instagram: / theprintindia
» Find us on LinkedIn : / theprint
» Subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram: t.me/ThePrintIndia
» Find us on Spotify: spoti.fi/2NMVlnB
» Find us on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/3pEOta8
Exclusive content, special privileges & more - Subscribe to ThePrint for Member benefits: theprint.in/subscribe/
Why are you even discussing about this opportunistic joker?
Shekhar, I listen print episodes while I drive to office. I have stopped car and writing this comment. When you call professionals, you ask question in short and shut up. You were very irritating today. It's like you call experts in a subject and then you school them. Please. Don't do this. We listen to your monologue in your CTC etc. Pl pardon here to the experts.
Is it a state? (Or)
Union territory?
Why the Union Govt intervene!! in state Govt role-playing? ,,,,
Is it because, Opposite party ?
Sekharji is interpreting every now and then.
The fair folks,wom u have 85% as u said, are not given the chance to complete their saying!, resulting u own 85% of the time, leaving miniscule 15 percent for the 2 know ledgable ladies.
The one with Bushi hair on far left did shine bright, say more candid
Sovereignty belongs to the people of India. And with its elected representatives in the parliament, sovereign people of India has every right to amend each and every part of the Indian constitution.
A bunch of unelected judges neither have the right to self appoint themselves in the supreme court, nor they have any right to infringe on the sovereign right of Indian people to amend their constitution as they want, for the welfare of its society.
"Basic Structure" is the moat to Judiciary like the "National Security" to Executive.
Beautifully versed
Let Apoorva speak , Mr Shekhar ! 😂😂 On a serious note, loved that you guys picked up this topic
Exactly! he is a compulsive talkative idiot
He interrupts many people a lot, usually apoorva or some other person he is making a video with. Either he is a micro-manager or does not care who he interrupts...
He is protecting his fundamental rights. 😂
I also can't tolerate SG now,Apoorva is my crush.😂
the interruptions often disrupt the flow of the conversation... is jarring for the person listening...
I would like to ask shekar as delhi resident how he feels about his vote being worth just a peice of paper now and election a time wasting exercise 😂
As a Delhi resident I am sure you also agree that the CM house needed 50Cr in renovation ... and those "consultants" appointed to ministries with hefty salaries were also very much needed...
Atleast you had the power to change it now ypu can't do anything so congratulations to your future with dummy elections.
"Shekar Readily Accepts,,," "Lord's Are Always Royal,,, "
"People Keepup Loyal"
"ORDER OF NATURE"
"No Doubt"
"Election waste"
"Visvaguru knows"
" Only EVM will do "
" Waste people Burden "
" National Militry Shootdown"
" For the Majority Hindians"
" Accurately Acted as Planned"
Jai Bharath,,,
(Sorry to say Jaihind)
( India is bad word now)
Gogoi is disgraced in the eyes of most people we know because of the sex assault case.
Were you in the room watching the crime or is your judgement clouded by your politics?
@@surajs5913
Can argue the same point in the case of BJP MP Brij Bushan.
@@mg.f.9023 yes, same argument can be made - it is for the law to decide who is guilty or innocent, not the individual.
@@surajs5913
If on side of BJP all crimes are erased. Even Black money becomes white.
If not on side of BJP then person is by default pronounced Guilty! Antinational! Tukde Tukde gang! Etc.
@@mg.f.9023 i can say the same for political criticism of bjp and supporters of hindutva who were labelled as terrorists (remember RSS ki saazish after 26/11), cowdung sanghi, and more recently the tag of fascist.
Fact of the matter is that no matter what names you call, what narratives you build, what conspirasies you claim (the bjp does all of the above too) you lack the support of the masses. Irrespective of your ranting or my reply, they will decide what they want or who they want. All your arguments are political arguments and all of them are addressed in the voting booth (assuming voting booth is not seized by TMC goons)....
Ambedkar quote is resonating in my mind. If you give a good constitution in the hands of bad people, no matter how good it is , it will turn out to be bad. It is not simple to understand all nitty grities, but I don't want a political party to change the basic structure around democracy and secularism. The Govt should always be held responsible for the miseries of the citizens.
Well said!
Imran khan should seek relief from SC of India. Millions of cases are pending . Justice delayed is Justice denied. Indian democratic institutions are very strong Therefore despite a failed judicial system, majority of the people are patient and waiting for indefinite period for dates,bails and judgements. While rich advocates are getting dates bails and judgements in lightening speed.
@@RKV8527 yes agree with you. Whatever the short comings we all trust our judiciary and most times it's protected us.
True thats why people of India kicked out congress.... and elected BJP
Secularism is not part of basic structure.
Our Hindu heritage has secularism inbuilt.
We don't want pseudo seculars to espouse us on secularism!!!
The basic structure doctrine is pure gold and should be enshrined primarily within our constitution. Its our last line of defence for our democracy against crooked politicians and governments like the one sitting in centre right now.
Basic structure robs people of their choice and gives Judiciary extra constitutional powers. Will of the people of this country is Supreme not some supreme court. Democracy is for the people by the people not for elitist judges. There might be popular revolution in coming days if will of common people through their elected parliament is mocked by some foreign returned elitist judges.
There's a reason why the makers of the constitution didn't mention anything as stupid as the basic structure.
They also has wisdom to keep judges accountable, which has alre been lost.
You mean we must protect democracy from democratically elected politicians !!! 🤣🤣What a good Idea !!
@@0609Bhuwan and who will protect democracy from the democratically elected parliament?
Why of course it's the nepotistic judges. 🤣🤣🤣
@@0609Bhuwan how democratic the so called politicans r ?
From toppling of state govts by central govt to the democratic/draconian use of laws like UAPA , SEDITION of agencies like ED / IT/CBI etc we have survived only and only because of Judiciary.
Judiciary may not be flawless institution but politicans amd politics is much much dirtier.
As far as winning elections is concerned even hitler did it
Basic structure is definitely debatable. It's scope is too broad. Things kinds of things should be small but extremely focused on scope.
That opens a pandora box. Basic structure is the basis of challenging govt. laws. Even if govt. passed the law, it can be reverted by courts on this basis. They don't do it arbitrarily out of their own minds. They read the book again and again, and try to figure out if it's conflicting with basic structure of the book. If this gets debated, parliament can pass law that only one party will rule India and no body will be able to challenge those laws. I don't think you understand consequences of it.
@@avinatoora what part of it being "small but extremely focused" didn't you understand? Only the absolute important part of the constitution should be untouchable. Like things that concerns life and death. Systems of governance should always be open to updates. You forget that the system is supposed to serve us. We are not supposed to support the system.
@@bulthaosen1169 I understand your point now. But, I think it should be made very difficult to amend these. Like it shouldn't be based on the majority of parliament members but everyone in both houses.
@@user-pq3ro9xr3j you don't even understand half the stuff you yourself wrote do you?
Alright answer me this : has there been any point in time in India's history where our constitution wasn't discriminatory? And do you think our constitution should be discriminatory or not? Do note I am talking about constitution and not govt.
First word in 3 years ¡ great.
Why was there no reference in this whole episode to the work that Justice Gogoi referred to:
T. R. Andhyarujina's "The Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Untold Story of Struggle for Supremacy by the Supreme Court and Parliament."
The late Sri. Andhyarujina was a well-respected authority on constitutional law. The subtitle of his book tells us that he goes into the 'politics' of the basic structure doctrine.
This conspicuous sidelining of the book in question is quite significant, Shekharji!
Someone who declared the verdict of his own sexual case
doesn't matter because one wrong doesn't make a person fundamentally wrong on everything neither do multiple wrongs you may have lied a billion times but you can still say the truth.
@@flaminmongrel6955 it is not a small wrong. It is a national level wrong at the highest magnitude
@@MathewJohn-gj5xn what difference does that make?
@@MathewJohn-gj5xn if he calls water, water, will you stop doing so because he committed one national level wrong?
Nemo judex in causa sua ( "no-one is judge in his own cause") He violated the very core of justice.... Sitting and pronouncing judgement in his own case....... No wonder he is challenging doctrine of basic structure
Kangaroo judge 😊😊😊😊😊
Mind blown. Learnt so much about the judiciary, constitution, and some history for good measure. Excellent episode. Thank you.
Judiciary is the only protector of our rights. It’s not perfect; but I certainly trust it more than the executive and the legislature. Hence I’m willing to tolerate some deficiencies in it, while acknowledging that they need to be fixed.
Wow!! You are willing to tolerate a cabal, which is undemocratic and wields unaccountable immense power, over the mandate of the people!! Wow!! And then these same people say they are for democracy and not feudal autocracy!! No wonder caste system mentality still pervades India.
One big step is to extend RTI to the judiciary, to identify the bad apples.
Thanks Bhadra, Apoorva and SG , you have my thanks for your truly interesting episode, shows us what we still have a lot to learn and understand, thank you
One of the better CTC in recent past, very informative, well balanced and unbiased. Congratulations to your team. Full points to Shekhar to pointing out the obvious when it comes to women, good one Sir.
Sounds like joke
24th April 1973, the day Kesavanand Bharati judgement was delivered and on the same day Sachin Tendulkar was born.. What an important day in the history of post independent India.
Now we know......Sachin always adjusted his 'basis structure' while batting....
Excellent CTC today! ... Surpasses all expectations. Brilliantly argued and discussed!
So basically Modi government now indirectly running as Indra Gandhi emergency government, what a Shame.
Yeah, but their genius is in doing it in small incremental steps, instead of Mrs. Gandhi's method of shock & awe & by labelling it an "emergency." Here's Modi's MO:
- Initiate a contentious topic by speaking on it publicly
- Get the cadres & minions to spread Whatsapp forwards (mostly fake news), and the Godi media to amplify that on their channels
- Use the above as a tool to get public support on their side
- If you win, good. Let it fade away from public memory. If you lose, retreat, and then reinitiate when the timing is right.
This is the MO they follow for everything sinister they have on their agenda. Not saying this specifically just for "Basic Structure" issue. In an ideal world, it should not even be required, but India remains an immature democracy, and hence it's the lesser of the two evils.
So you want the Congress back 🤣?
Aap puncture theek Karo. Politics and Judiciary aap ke bas ki baat nahi
I knew only person who will pick this important speech up is Shekhar Gupta. A very articulate speech by Mr Gogai, was on point by aiming at the kesavananda Bharti judgement. Well done by former CJI.
Nicely explained - I think putting the collegium in the basic structure has to some extent undermined the judicial case of the basic structure for obvious reasons. Having said that SG, seems having young reporters on your show with you brings out your best dress sense. Great shirt and matching trousers! 🥰
😂
Credentials of two people who raised question against "Basic Structure" -
1. Mr. Dhankhar - as a governer of WB, he did all type of work which is not prescribed for Governer. He tried to become a non elected CM. I have seen Venkaiah Naidu in Rajyasabha as a vice president and he had never done things like Dhankhar. He was not praising the PM like any Andh Bhakt does.
2. Mr Gagoi - This is the man who sat on the judgement against himself in a sexual abuse case. What else anyone can say about this person?
Two sell outs and examples that people who lack character and are driven by self-interest are politicians.
So you are basically attacking the persons involved because you have no arguments to counter their opinions?
Sold already
@@RC-br1ps I don't think so.
There are many politicians who work for people and obviously in turn work for themselves too. They are not Saint but they are not the Rakshas either.
Nitin Gadkari, Shashi Tharoor, etc are few examples of that.
@@surajs5913 😂😂😂
If a rapist talks about saving women and women Rights, will you counter der argument?
Exactly.
By the way, at least watch this video where the same person was claiming what Basic Structure is.
So I don't have to put something extra in this regard.
Even read or watch Arun Jetali statements about the Basic Structure. I think he was the greatest lawyer BJP ever had.
And the basic structure of human psychology is to "do things when they benefit you"
- Gogoi
Thanks for this episode. Only two minutes in but appreciate you picking this topic up
What has he done with his last case in SC , also where is the girl which he was fixed in the case.
Congratulations to the team for the unbiased information .thank you shekar sir.
Following the year 2024, the potential emergence of the BJP in power could potentially lead to a significant challenge to the constitutional framework. Such a scenario might prompt a transition in India's status from the largest democratic nation globally to a preeminent autocratic entity.
If RSS/BJP, is allowed further?
Unimaginable Changes,,,!!!
The Nations of Globe,,,!!!
Have to see,,,!!! Shall See,,,!!!
If it is The Order of Nature,,,!!!
Ok,,,!!! When God Played???
Who can Do? What? How???
Let's see "Thiruvilaiyaadal"!!!
" Who knows 'His' Plans ???"
Cry about it.
Futurologist!
😂😂 bro stop shooting your imagination theories..
India will run as it runs..
Stop living in a hoax World
Secularism and Socialism were not in the original preamble on 26,Jan 1950 and Until 1976 through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment...so how was the basic structure of the constitution allowed to be amended in 1976?
Does Parliament or the SC embody 'We the People'?
How can something decided in 2950 be relevant 73 years later? Hasn't India changed which demands re-writing of the Constitution?
Addition of the word "Secular" didn't make the Constitution, or India secular. They always were secular, even when the constitution was written. You might wanna read the preamble carefully, it literally says "***LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;*** & that in itself makes it secular, not to mention all the other articles and rights that are there in the Constitution.
Addition of the words "Secular" & "Socialist" wasn't really necessary.
Simple - it didn’t change anything. India was always secular.
This could've been explained way more efficiently w just - Shankari Prasad, Golak Nath, 24th Ammendment and Keshavananda Bharti. Itne mein 3 marks milta hai 10 mein.
42nd amendment also added famous/in-famous "Secular" word to constitution and it still sits in the basic structure. This word was not included by Ambedkar committee and later became fav.word for left to consolidate different political ideological branches (common platform based on this mystical word). Using this word, all parties does only religious business (that why I termed mystical word) and hatred between communities became 10 folds :-(
INDIAN CONSTITUTION WAS SECULAR RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. THERE WERE ARTICLE 14- EQUALITY BEFORE LAW & 15- PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CASTE, RACE, RELIGION, SEX & PLACE OF BIRTH. WE HAD A SECULAR CONSTITUTION EVEN WITHOUT MENTIONING THE WORD SECULAR. THE 42ND AMMENDMENT ONLY EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IT. EVEN IF THE 42ND AMMENDMENT WASN'T MADE, THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE WOULD STILL HAVE SECULARISM IN IT AS OUR CONSTITUTION WAS SECULAR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
@AmitKumarAlphaX - So you are agreeing to the fact it was added unnecessarily and to get political consolidation. Yes, Indian constitution drafted to accommodate every section of society. But Did not included secular word in the constitution draft and in fact Ambedkar himself turn down this request multiple times as this word is slippery and have more consequences than assumed (read constitutional debates from 1948-1950) . Our constitution is also not completely secular as it allows different versions of personal laws in public discourse. Many other such examples available based on different regions of the country. BTW, your keyboard is not working I guess as I see lot of "CAPS" : -). To my understanding adding socialist and secular words are more for political consolidation and It did draw lot of communal attention as expected.
@@nallapraveen read article 25-28 Along with others the other guy mentiond which essentially makes our constitution secular , Indian constitution is secular and was framed keeping secularism in mind . What was hithero implicit was made explicit by amendment it also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation", does that mean it original constitution didn’t envisage integrity of nation , it added socialist does that mean Indian constitution before wasn’t rooted in democratic socialism . It doesn’t have federal mentioned anywhere in preamble does that mean we don’t have federal polity . Go and read first and then spread the hatred. Why is our current govt so willing to tinker with the secular character of country . What was valid and relevant in 1940 might not be relavant in 2023 , had Ambedkar been alive he would’ve advocated for a secularism explicitly written allover constitution . I’m open for discussion on secularism once we achieve all other ideals mentioned in preamble .
@@Rsrahul2427 Brainwashed idiots!!! Secularism doesn't mean appeasement of a specific minority!! The present dispensation is removing these appeasement policies which benefited the elites of a specific minority community, who held the entire community in siege mentality against others. But chamchas will be chamchas and will use words like secularism idiotically.
@Rsrahul2427 - Did you read my comments with out prejudice? We did n't became secular just because the word was mentioned in the constitution. We co-existed centuries. If you read my comments properly or read the constitutional debates, Inclusion of these words will cause damage more than intent of inclusion. What is secular? does current political spectrum is not influenced or backing religious lines. Ex: Count how many states taking away religious temples money (only one community why?) how does this protecting secular constitutional values. Your self contradicting your statements. If adding does n't make any change then removing also would n't make any difference? right? I am not for to propagate add or remove. I am saying an unnecessary political course was triggered by this action without looking consequence. Also, " Ambedkar been alive he would’ve advocated for a secularism explicitly" is hypothetical thinking. One could argue that if he was alive he could pursue for UCC. Does n't our constitutional committee is not aware that communal fault lines existed in freshly carved out (wounded) India? but then why they turned down the request 3 times? These are not my comments, check the debate notes. Constitution also provided personal laws, special protection /status /laws to some regions (specially on religious and cultural beliefs) . If constitution is 100% secular these special provisions will not be there. These are available because our constitution is accommodating above the secular/religious fault lines.
These two "experts" may know more than me, but believe me as a civil services aspirant I could have explained it in a much digestible form of "basic structure doctrine"...
This is a slippery slope, the economy might be growing but things like this will keep causing the government to overreach it's authority without any checks and balance
Constitution can be ammended by the govt. It has the strenght.
Indira Gandhi did so.
@@RAMESH-js9lcand she was shown her place by people and the court. Same will happen to those who follow blindly
Sir When will we see a CTC on CCP using their assets to do propaganda in India and other countries? Lot of Indian journalists were found to be on their payroll. This is a serious issue. The behavior of Editors Guild is very concerning.
Really BEHERA BABU.. I heard so too. I heard
Rubika Liyaqat
Navika Kumar
Arnab Goswami
Anjana Om Kashyap
Sushant Sinha
Aman Chopra
Sudhir Chaudhary
Deepak Chaurasia
Rajat Sharma
Rahul Shivshankar
Chitra ??? Whatever Dirt
All were on CCP Payroll
Aapki list mein kis kis ka naam hai
Kaunsi universiy se padha hai ya chai bechta hai ??
You can’t say that there is something in the constitution that can’t be changed until the end of the world.!
fair enough - if that 'something' is rendered redundant by a better thing . but if one's not worth his salt to even live up to a 75 yr old 'something' and wants to use brute power to remove that inconvenient thing, then its better that one ends that miserable shameless useless existence on this planet, no????
@@ytadltspv the constitution wisely requires a two thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament to change many things. In some cases it even requires approval by many states. When article 370 was abolished even some congress members were for the abolition. So in which years did one party have two thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament?
Secondly who decides what the basic constitution is? Unelected judges?. Are you aware that over 80% of the higher judiciary comes from a handful of families. The current head Supreme Court’s father was also the head of the Supreme Court. NJAC’s rejection was an absolute subversion of democracy as it unanimously passed in both Houses of Parliament except for one abstention. Can you name one democratic country in the world where part of the constitution is enacted by the courts?
@@Nashaking316
Actually, that's the case in Israel and people are protesting so that judges can keep interpreting the Basic Laws as they wish
@@varoonnone7159 in Israel they are huge differences. They don’t have an upper house so there are no checks and balances. In any case the new law passed by the Israeli parliament is valid because democracy is supreme not unelected judges. However in a democracy you can go onto the streets and try to force the government to back down. They may or may not succeed. But unelected judges cannot act like dictators and practically rewrite the constitution. If judges can rewrite the constitution and say unbelievable things like consultation means concurrence and strike down laws passed constitutionally by unanimous vote as with the NJAC where is democracy?
We saw democracy in action during the farmers protests forcing the supposedly strong modi government to back down.
In a democracy you can’t have a judiciary that is above the constitution and that subverts the democratic will.
@@Nashaking316
The example you took proves the contrary. Democracy is the rule of the majority opinion not of the crowd, that's ochlocracy.
What happened with the farmers' protests was a major setback for Democracy as a minority of protesters out of 1.4 billion people lead to laws being not implemented. That's shameful and dangerous
Judges in the US are vetted by elected representatives, judges in the UK are not but they aren't constitutional judges. In Israel, supreme court judges were constitutional judges and were not vetted by elected representatives. So that's an argument in favour of Netanyahu's reform.
The real issue is a balance between what judges can control and who nominates them. If they aren't constitutional judges, then their nomination is not problematic.
The second issue is how constitutional revisions can be made. In France, the parliament has to assemble at Versailles and vote with a two third majority. In the US, a majority of states have to agree upon the revision etc. If constitutional amendments are easily done as in India, then the Constitution is in danger
The basic structure principle isn't unique to India. France has a "Bloc de Constitutionnalité" which includes the 1789 declaration of human rights but also the 1905 law on secularism. It wasn't specified as such in the constitution. The constitutional council unilaterally created this bloc in a landmark decision
One should remember that the sacrosanct Indian constitution was not even adopted by referendum and was adopted by a constituent assembly made up of indirectly elected members. Treating it as the will of the people is anachronistic
Absolutely wonderful episode of cut the clatter....👏💐💐
...thank you...almost the entire clutter was cleared in my perception...this proves that a strong ruler will do anything to rule on...
"Modyji is Bhagwaan"
" He has got majority"
" Somehow or other "
"I TOO HAVE VOTED"
" Now He has All Powers"
" To Do Anything Silently"
" He is not speaking " note,
" Nobody shall Speak" ok?
" Let everyone make-anything
Congratulations on being brainwashed successfully.
@@ravindranmuthukarupaiya6335 46' election result ---mosslim constituency ( Bombay Province 100% seat goes to M. League, Madras Province 100%, Bengal 95%, Assam 91%, Orissa 100%, Central Province 93% so on & so on ...) still this librandu congress did not do popul. xchange. ......... plus kkuffar desh main rehna hharram hai iislamb k anusar ( kkuran 4.97) inko bolo apna iislamb follow kare aur nikle bharat se......
I like Shekar comments on Gogol
The makers of our constitution were so stupid that they forgot to mention something as important as "The basic structure" in the entire 145000 word constitution. 😅😅😂😂
It does not.exist.
No where this division is found in the book of constitution.
Basic structure
Middle structure
Upper structure.
I am reminded of what Dr. Ambedkar said ib constituent assembly debates regarding the inclusion of the word 'socialist' in the preamble of the constitution - that whether the economy must be socialist or capitalist is for the people of each generation to decide during there time. Defining a basic structure is the imposition of the will of past generations on the present generation. Using a undefined arbitrary basic structure doctrine is the imposition of the will of the judiciary on the nation...
Our Harvard-educated brown saahibs are smarter than the makers 😜😜!!!
Maybe even in their wildest dream they never thought that some elected government would try to destroy the fundamentals of our constitution but they have been proven wrong twice once by indira and now by modi.
@@cosmicheathen1955 i really dont think that os the case, seeing how many checks and balances are built into the constitution and the state machinery of India.
As for destruction of fundamentals of institutions, that is a debatable subjective opinion that you hold...
Very nice. And thought provoking. Discussion. Kudos. Sg and team you summed up in the lat sentence... True.
Loved it! Loved the CTC and most of all I loved the sarcasm 😂
I agree some part of cji speech, we have every thing mentioned in rule and laws for every organ of state, it is high time sc fix what are the principles within basic structure doctrine, right now anything can become part of basic structure as par court and judges wish
oh ya now you agree with a ex CJI who was a sexual harasser and now a BJP employee. How much do you get for your two cents of nonsense coming out of jobless karyakarta brain ?
What a wonderful and insightful discussion! Thank you.
Very educative. Wish all the best for democratic India.
Thank you for the discussion
Mr Shekhar Gupta Sir could please consider and thereby discuss how Delhi Services Bill satisfies "The Rule of Purposive Interpretation" coined by current CJI Dr Justice Chandrachud Sir and tell your opinion on what Delhi Services Bill achieves as an end result which is not possible by existing statutes.
I would like to express my approval of Mr. Shekhar Gupta promoting the next generation of Journalists, mentoring them to carry the torch forward!
In a world where we have come to look down upon the profession of journalism, your professionalism both to your viewers/audience AND to your junior colleagues is refreshing. It keeps a spark alive that hope is not yet lost.
Oh. The guy who gave a wrong verdict on Raam Mandhir for MP seat.
"Dictators' Justify"Self"cruely"
"Selfish' Just Accept"safety"
Thanks thanks a lot all three of you.
Thanks for your Supportive Journalism 🙏🙏
He is not a judge now. He’s only a politician. He is the man who sat in judgment of the case against himself and absolved him of the crime! So much for his integrity. Pathetic to see a former CJI sitting amongst other MPs.
This is the "Judge" who doesn't understand the basic legal concept of "conflict of interest" and "recusement" and, in the process, nearly turned the Supreme Court of India into a kangaroo court.
Why are you even talking about a person who's clearly a man without principles?
Was it the first time such a thing has happened?
@@amithabv1060yes
@@kahutochishisumi9056 i would urge you to check up on some EC justices from 1989 onwards and just preceding the time of emergency
The most shameless CJI India has ever had.
I agree. Thank God there are still people like you who remember.
Very good commentary. Learnt quite a bit.
Wonderful presentation - Kudos!
Dhanyavad 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Kudos to The Print in putting the next generation of journalists and leaders on the forefront, and giving them space to put to use their expertise. Other organizational leaders can learn from these examples.
Gogoi has said he has changed his mind after reading Andhyarujina's book, possibly the book `The Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Untold Story of Struggle for Supremacy by Supreme Court and Parliament (2012)' . He may have read the book after retiring. How can one accuse him of hypocrisy? Can't he change his mind, given a strong argument?
A good episode, informative
As they say...."Self preservation is the strongest human instinct!"
Hehe 😂
If you ask me Mr.Gupta, by doing this episode on Ranjan Gogoi's rather gratuitous observation on the basic structure doctrine, you have unnecessarily hyped up something that should have been summarily ignored. BJP finds the doctrine inconvenient as it stands in the way of the party's homogenising project of turning India into a Hindu rashtra. Why are you providing impetus to the sinister designs of BJP-RSS?
Good reason to surmise SG is a closet RSS sympathiser.
I often wonder how come views of Bengalis and Peaceful community match so much. No wonder Mamta wins easily in Bangall 😅
@@roshanthapa8487 you have such poor understanding of Bengal politics! Besides, you choose to comment knowing nothing about my view on Mamata. Pathetic! Only if you knew, Modi and RSS are the only two reasons Mamata is not in jail! Won’t go into explanation as that would be effort wasted.
Brilliant explanation of the issues involved and Gogoi’s double speak.
Kindly add Mr. Palkiwala arguments and key points raised while arguing Keshvanand Bharti Vs State of Kerala case in SC.
Nice idea sometimes even if our meal is liking the most we need तडका different spices... So group discussion in cut the cutter once in month or quarter is appreciated 😊😊😊😊😊😊
just loved the discussion
Me too CJI protected by feku as always 😅
At the end parliament has to DECIDE the LAWS of a state and not Judiciary or Supreme Court of India as they themselves as Lower - High - Supreme Court Judgement is not UNIQUE across last 75+ years...
Very interesting odcast
Ex CJI remarks about Basic Structure Doctrine where he quoted a name of the Book written by Solicitor General A.Arjuna. He Just spoke about and discusse the Constitution provision.
Shekharji - Just great to know your team's gender balance. Also your humbleness is awesome.
Are you Harvard-educated?
That last comment of your's Gupta ji is debatable.
30:44 30:44
With an "objectivity" says Ms Bhadra Sinha, when she means OBJECTIVE.
Having said that, I applaud her comprehensive research on the subject and erudite elocution on the same. Bravaa!!
When can we see CTC on newsclick ?
It was a very thin margin case. 7 judges in favour and 6 against it. The debate on such decisions will therefore go on especially when our constitution is dynamic and not rigid like some other countries.
Ironically, Manish Tewari's tweet, "Where you stand depends on where you sit", also applies to him and his own party. It's interesting how much space Indira Gandhi and Congress took in this discussion. UPA also had run-ins with the courts. Law is the lawmakers' domain. Big Govt overreach needs to be CHECKED but done under a DEFINED FRAMEWORK which is DULY DISCUSSED in the parliament. Courts SHOULD NOT conjure things out of thin air and be allowed to call it "Basic structure".
Exactly. It is just an opinion.
Nowhere in the constitution one can find division as
Basic structure
Middle structure
Upper structure
And the Speaker said,"The House is being enlightened..."
Well explained the issue
Interestingly when the European Convention on the Safeguard of Human Rights was being drafted, property rights were a major bone of contention too. It had to be added with the very first protocole a year later
I don't agree with Collegium System at all.
Because of it appointment of Judges are based around 'Nepotism' and not Merrit.
I am not saying that, government should have the power to appointment judges.
But a, Judicial Appointment commeete can be formed, which can have
1/3 vote of Court, 1/3 of Government and 1/3 of Opposition also.
Then how you can expect judges to give verdict against government,if they are appointed by them
And there is no nepotism in politics. Jay shah who cant even read from a piece of paper is doing what ?
Jay Shah / Rahul Gandhi have to be elected by the people to hold power & are held accountable on performance.
to madrchod monarchy kyu ghoshit nahi kar dete .@@shortclip9382
@@offred6013 abe Rndi ke bachhe sun , jai shah is not in politics . and all other like Rahul gandhi/Sindhia/ Jayant sinha wins their constituencies , unlike nepotistic elected judge
Modi... modi... Mr Gupta... become Andbakth... 😂... ... i don't understand for what ?.... " history will not be kind at you "
Mr. Shekhar - John Maynard Keynes is often credited with saying “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” In fact, the actual source of this quote was not Keynes, but Paul Samuelson, another famous economist.
Excellent 👍
Thanks
Dear Aviram,
Thank you for your contribution to ThePrint.
Ex CJI Gogoi may please be forgiven for the circumstance the Intern has placed him in. Poor chap😮
Why is this so late? Is the team burning candles at both ends?
So,as part of Ram Mandir judgement the ex CJI put places of worship act under basic structure and now he is saying it is questionable? Wow.
However, in 370 hearing current CJI told Sibbal that except Basic Structure everything can be amended.
Because he can clear himself of sexual harassment cases😊😊😊😊😊
Was the inclusion of "Secular," "Social," through the 42nd amendment mentioned, when it was discussed in this video? If no, why not? In my experience at least, surely those inclusions were the "most popular" (~23:28).
It’s disgusting to see parliamentarians clap and thump desks when basic structure is getting attacked. Bloody? You are our democratically elected people not defending democracy ? Andy rights of average citizens?
Isn’t that the guy accused of sexual harassment…. And sold his soul for Rajya sabha seat. Yeah CJI 'figured out later'that's its not good to sit on a panel for his own sexual assault hearing......surrrre. Yeah we care about his opinion😂 there is a reason he does not open his mouth, doesn't draw scrutiny😏
That's he😆😆😆😆😆
Brilliant analysis
Terrific episode. Legal and political context was presented very well.
Sometimes it really feels good to pay for news 😉😇
Sometimes is the key word imo.
Please do a CTC on Keshavananda Bharti case on account of 50 years of judgement
I thought property right is one of the fundamental in Indian constitution; unfortunately, Indian constitution provides for amendments rather frivolously.
Property right is a Constitutional right under article 300A.
@@kanishkadas9290not a right to property but only compensation
@@kanishkadas9290the state literally owns you in India don't believe me? try buying a gun because it's a property and only a gun will show how wide government powers are when they wish to control your own property.
@@flaminmongrel6955 gun is immovable property and it consists some side effects.
Was as educative an episode as any was. Apoorva though the juniormost looks the most self assured & articulate.
Bhadra might be very knowledgeable, however the shuffling of printed papers gives a sense of confusion & unpreparedness to the viewer.
Best avoided, if the same can be replaced by a iPad or tablet, with appropriate bookmarks been placed for speedy referral. Just a suggestion for improvement, else all good n actually a superb episode..
Why even we are debating basic structure when former CJI is being nominated to parliament first parliament and executive should get their house in order then should talk about judiciary
Print failed to understand that Legislature always wants suprima over judiciary in framing and interpreting law , contrary Judiciary wants suprima over Lagislative in interpreting law. Gogoi was a part of judiciary stand behind "Basic Structure". Right now as a part of Lagislative stand against "Basi Structure".
"Yeah, well. That's just like, your opinion, man!" -DY Chandrachud
Shekhar Gupta, you should allow the experts to speak. To begin with do not trivialize too much. Secondly Right to Property was formally abolished by Janata Party during their rule.
This ‘basic structure‘. idea is just an opinion.
Constitution is not divided as
1) base or basic structure
2) Middle structure
3) upper structure.
So that argument goes out of the window.
Thank you and very well done by the legal team. Gogoi of course has and continues to be rejected by me and many other senior lawyers. His position now is a matter of political conevience and the personal benefits.
The original constitution does not say that. Added only in 1991 😱
Independence of Judiciary is paramount to protect the weak. Democracy is about checks and balances. If legislative could modify constitution without oversight, we would be dictatorship by now. As for the question of check on Judiciary, the Judiciary can quash a constitution amendment, but it cannot govern the nation. The fact that it cannot legislate or govern the nation is the check on Judiciary!!