Parliament is reflective of the will of the people. People who sit in Parliament are there because through a legitimized mechanism on a proper platform the people have expressed their mandate. Therefore Parliament is the soul of democracy, authentically reflecting the mood of the people, their opinions. Supremacy of parliament at the sole architect of the Constitution is unquestionable. It is not amenable in its task to intervention either from the executive or the judiciary.
Sovereignty of Parliament is synonymous with sovereignty of the nation and the same is impregnable. Why I say so? The executive of the day survives only if it has strength in the parliament. I don’t want to be loud mouth; but the other institution also survives only when it is sanctified by the parliament. Therefore, such a body, the foundation of which is the mandate of the people cannot allow any incursion in its domain. That will be disturbing the delicate applecart of governance in a democracy. Friends any incursion in the exclusive domain of Parliament will be Constitutional aberration, apart from being antithetical to democratic essence and values.
Democracy is optimally nurtured when state organs the Executives, the Judiciary and the Legislature work in harmony, tandem and togetherness. There is well defined constitutional domain for the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature. It is constitutional mandate that all these organs of the State function in their respective domain. The arrogation of authority of one organ by the other was beyond the contemplation of framers of the Constitution.
To ensure continual growth of Bharat – home to 1/6th of humanity, Friends, it is imperative, it is unavoidable, it is a must that the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature generate collaborative discourse rather than the confrontational perception.
Governance is dynamic, given the emergence of challenges and technological onslaughts. There are bound to be differences, there are bound to be issues. Issues have to be ironed out. In a country like ours which has to show path to the entire world, there must be convergence of attitude amongst these three Institutions in particular.
If there are differences which are bound to be there, such differences and resolution thereof must take place by taking recourse to sublime statesmanship. Public posturing or generating perception as a strategy to deal with such differences is best avoided.
I can assure you that I am a foot soldier of judiciary. I am from legal profession. Judicial independence, like to millions of people in the country, is very dear to me. We want spinally strong Judiciary and I can say without the fear of contradiction that our Judiciary is one of the best in the world.
I have appreciated the innovative steps that have been taken. The independence of Judiciary is unquestioned but time has come that we must have a mechanism of structured interaction amongst those at the helm of the affairs of such Institutions, so that issues don’t come in public domain.
I am happy to note that people in command of these institutions are statesman they are farsighted, be the prime minister of the country, the president of the Nation or the chief justice of India, we couldn’t be more fortunate than having these illustrious people heading the institutions and therefore any abbreviation coming in public domain by observation or otherwise will not be soothing to our ears which means soothing to the people at large, I am working in my own way in my capacity to generate such a system because none of the people in the institutions can be complainants, they can’t be complainants, they have to bring about resolution of the complainant of the people at large. I am sure good times are ahead.
On this momentous day, I would make reference to the sage reflection of Dr B R Ambedkar: “The objective of the Constitution is not only limited to creation of three organs of the Union but also to define the limits of their powers. And it is also essential because if the limits are not defined the institutions will become autocratic and start exploitation. Therefore, the legislature should be free to enact any law, the executive should be free to take any decision and the Supreme Court should be free to interpret the laws.” constitutional provisions providing for interpretation of law and constitution is a small slit it cant be floodgate we have to be extremely worry about and I am sure people around with the kind of talent they have with the kind of spirit of nationalism they are fight with these issues thrashed out and we will be in a situation to have our institutions functioning in harmony and togetherness in tendem to achieve our bharat rise to the highest level.
Governance is dynamic, given the emergence of challenges and technology onslaughts. There are bound to be differences, there are bound to be issues. Issues have to be ironed out. In a country like ours which has to show path to the entire world, there must be convergence of attitude amongst these three Institutions in particular.
If there are differences which are bound to be there, such differences and resolution thereof must take place by taking recourse to sublime statesmanship. Public posturing or generating perception as a strategy to deal with such differences is best avoided.
*****
MS/JK
