SC WON'T LET GOVT. CONTROL ELECTIONS.....SC WARNS GOVT. ...5 JUDGE NO WRONG #supremecourtofindia

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Was it necessary?

[00:00:01]>> Yes.

[00:00:02]>> For a five judge constitution bench to write over 300 paragraphs for a 142 order.

[00:00:11]>> I'll answer that.

[00:00:12]>> Can it not be severed?

[00:00:14]>> Concluding part is 142.

[00:00:17]But some law has been interpreted by the constitution bench which includes the constitution. What has to be the structure? Could the Supreme Court five judges >> no spend so much time and write such a >> I would not like >> taking audite judgment.

[00:00:37]>> I would not like to call it a labor of >> but Anuk Bunwal has interpreted the constitution and laid down what the law is.

[00:00:48]>> You may take a long >> about the independence of the commission.

[00:00:51]>> Yeah.

[00:00:52]>> Right. What >> precludes us from borrowing the language of Anu Baranwal in writing our judgment that this is law. Let us assume we accept your proposition that Anu Bernwal is 140 right but Anuk Bunwal has interpreted the constitution and laid down what the law is.

[00:01:17]>> You may take a >> about about the independence of the commission.

[00:01:20]>> Yeah.

[00:01:21]>> Right. What >> precludes us from borrowing the language of Anubaranwal in writing our judgment that this is law.

[00:01:31]>> Well, there's one possible copyright violation.

[00:01:33]>> Well, there's one possible Supreme Court speaking your law.

[00:01:36]>> Is the Supreme Court speaking? We will just simply borrow that language.

[00:01:39]>> Your lawyers can do that.

[00:01:40]>> Say that. Yeah, >> passing a 142 order.

[00:01:43]>> Your lawyers can do that. But then that's why that's where I think not that I am I am asking the court to desist from exploring this issue. I only lay by the contours of the debate which will necessarily be involved in it and that question is a very important question.

[00:01:58]I'll answer that after I read Anu.

[00:02:00]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:02:02]>> We are not going to say anything based on what Anu Baral has really laid down with regard to inclusion of the Chief Justice of India.

[00:02:15]Please please remove it from >> No, I I'm not even I'm not even looking at it. We are on that on the emphasis of India's inclusion will make >> no no I'm not I'm not looking at it at all >> so much better that no one else can be considered not on that at all in >> in fact I don't want to enter into a debate where which will be the best method I I think in this matter >> if at all leave it to parliament >> I I not >> parliament joined under the constitution to correct >> legislate we are not to legislate we are only to interpret the law and if at all we are Then we can say that yes for XY Z reasons we feel that 14 is violated only to this extent not on the basis of Anupar and one >> I know the basis of >> I know that's why I thought I should always place it >> if we if I can uh express my mind further you know after the constit constitution is the fountain head of all legislation which legislation according to you has the next importance in the entire list of central legislations.

[00:03:30]We have thousands of legislation.

[00:03:32]>> Yes.

[00:03:33]>> If one were to ask you >> Yes.

[00:03:36]>> to the constitution.

[00:03:37]>> Yes.

[00:03:38]>> Which legislation has prime of place or pride of place in the entire set of legislations? Yes. Which one will you put?

[00:03:48]>> No. then I will have to classify them in the sense that hey last part very important question I'll answer that if I look at only an an independent judiciary then ultimately if there is no independent judiciary then there is we have as SG J Singh said women capist we are not talking about a women capitalist of a rule of law is best is best captured and comprehended circumstances when parliament has occupied the field by enacting an appropriate law which in his wisdom will be relevant but the pronouncement to the honorable court will not be merely a matter of history and cannot be treated having judicially enforcable authority.

[00:04:29]I thought a very important question for lot consideration and in fact it took me quite quite a time to understand was it necessary >> was it necessary >> yes >> for a five judge constitution bench to write over 300 paragraphs for a 142 order >> I'll answer that >> can it not be severed >> concluding part is 142 but some law has been interpreted by the constitution bench which includes the constitution what has to be the structure what is the argument >> I certainly answer that question I'm bound to >> you'll have to answer in of your argument touch upon this it's not >> because if it had been really 142 the supreme court would have said very well >> I would not law has been laid down for seven decades you frame the law as per your wisdom but in the intergnum we say that this should be the structure of the commission >> no that the matter Why would the Supreme Court five judges >> no spend so much time and write such a >> I would not >> taking audite judgment I would >> it's history only >> I know why why have you said >> it's stretching a bit too far it's only history and >> if if I have not put it like that this question would not have come to me so I I I've thought so much about what will be the appropriate way of communicating to the court for you Lord just knows in the in the course of discuss discussion with a with a bench we we make certain proposition not be necessarily logical to be accepted or not it's for the purpose of having a very high level of conversation and engaging our minds that's why I thought let me put it like that I know that you can't simply wish it away >> I'm not saying wish it away but then you can't wish it away how do you give a place to it in in the jurist prudence of a country that's where I found myself a lot of lot of troubling questions not that therefore I said when I argue this matter Before Anu Bardal we had encountered certain factual questions, questions are put to me. We produce how the appointments are made and then we also looked into all all possible global alternatives and things like that. The court went into all that exercise. But if parliament for instance after having the constituent assembly with all that intense debates and the change brought in article 324 after sax abroad suggested something that was subject to law made by parliament. Suppose that subject law made by parliament was not there and constituent assembly had spent a lot of time saying that we need an independent election commission and left it entirely to the president then what would have happened to the constitutional scheme. Therefore when they thoughtfully said in a future time when a future parliament will take stock of a given situation and finds it necessary that the authority which has been entrusted to high functioning president has not yielded the requisite result. We need to go farther. Therefore your future parliament taking stock of any you know evolving situation will have the better wisdom to find out what can be the better law.