Author: Ak Srivastava
“With respect to first of these arguments,I do not think S100 imposes on Parliament the duty to continue to provide Judges with precisely the same type of pension they received in 1867. The Canadian Constitution is not locked for ever in a 119 year old casket. It lives and breaths and is capable of growing to keep pace with the growth of the country and its people. Accordingly, if the Constitution can accommodate, as it has, many subjects unknown in 1867-airplanes, nuclear energy, hydroelectric power – it is surely not straining S100 much to say that the word ‘Pension’, admittedly understood in one sence in 1867, can today support Judicial legislation based on a different understanding of Pension”
(Extract from the Judgment of CJ Dickson of Canadian Supreme Court in Queen v Beauregard.1987 LRC (Constitution) 180 (Supreme Court of Canada)
The aforesaid passage extracted above has been approved by the Hon`ble Supremeourt of India Judge`s case ( Supreme Court Advocate on Record Assn. V Union Of India in the year 1993.
Accordingly, our Constitution is also a living organic document which advances with the time and is not a static dead document.It lives and breaths and support the people of India in all situations.
The preamble to the Constitution namely Socialist Secular Democratic Republic are the basic features of the Constitution along with Independent Judiciary. Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are the goals of the Republic.
Dr.Radhakrishnan,former President of India in his book Recovery of Faith explained secularism as follows-
“When India is said to be a secular state, it does not mean that we reject the reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or states assumes divine prerogatives.”
Unfortunately,secularism has been taken to absurdity to condemn the majority and spread a hate campaign against them. To call itself a Hindu is seen as anti-national as if Hindus sow the seed of discord.
Art.44 speaks about Uniform Civil Code in Chapter-4 which is Directive Principles of State Policy. The State has never strived for framing Uniform Civil Code.The Supreme Court twice suggested to the Central Government to take steps to frame Uniform Civil Code but such suggestion has never been listened to by the government of the day.There is no effort to advance the goal of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, of course , has been always advancing the purposes of the Constitution and made it a vibrant Constitution.New vistas have been opened by using the path of interpretation.The meaning of “Life and Liberty” under Art.21 and Equality under Art.14 have been liberlised to cover new events of life.A citizen is more secured today than he used to be before.The Supreme Court have always endevoured to balance the Social Policies by emphasizing and pressing the Equality clause.Left to the Vote bank politics and vote bank politicians, they would have tilted the Constitution lopsided for their own benefits but Supreme Court promptly stepped in and checked the imbalance.
The amending power of the Constitution under Art.368 were misused a few times in thepast. In a 13 Judge Bench Judgment popularly known as Kesvanand Bharti`s case it was held 7:6 that Indian Parliament have the power to amend the Constitution but can not alter the basic features of the Constitution. The political party using its brute majority would have destroyed the Nation taking the Constitutional route itself. But the aforesaid Judgment is a check in the that direction.
During emergency clamped in 1975, all fundamental rights were suspended including the right of Life and Liberty. In ADM Jabalpur V Shukla Case a contention was raised by then Ld. Attorney General that even a man is shot dead, he has no remedy as the fundamental rights are suspended. 4 Judges accepted the contention but Justice H.R. Khanna gave his dissenting judgment negativing that contention. He said that Life and Liberty are natural rights only recognized by the Constitution and it does not flow from Art.21 of Constitution.The salutery judgment of Justice Khanna was hailedthrough out the world but it cost Justice Khanna Chief Justiceship as he was superseded by Justice M.H. Beg who was appointed Chief Justice .
The Constitution envisages separation of powers amongst the three wings of the State namely ,Executives,Legislatures and Judiciary,though unlike U.S.Constitution which employs strict separation of Power,our Constitution lays down only loose separation of Power.This has lead to spats between the wings of the State.At times there is Judicial Legislation namely Judiciary legislation in the Grey area not covered by the legislation but at times there is Legislative Judgment when the legislature tries to annull the Judgment of the Court by legislating.
I have only tried to give a bird eye view of a few provisions of the Constitution and not dealt with whole of Constitution.
Disclaimer: Yug Vani invites stories, comments, cartoons, jokes and any other information that would be of interest to general readers. We reserve the right to accept or refuse submissions and edit for content and length. We also reserve the right to refuse advertising that in our opinion does not reflect the standards of this website. The opinions expressed, whether by paid advertisement or editorial content does not necessarily reflect the views of this website. Content submitted may be reprinted and acknowledged without consent unless specifically requested.