S.A. Bobde, the Chief Justice of India, said that the Supreme Court was trying to discourage people from filing lawsuits under Article 32, a procedure for remedy when someone's fundamental rights are violated.
The Supreme Court made this declaration on Monday during the hearing of the Kerala Union of Working Journalists' habeas corpus case under Article 32 for the release of journalist Siddique Kappan.
Keralan citizen Kappan was arrested on October 5 while en route to Hathras to report on the alleged gang rape and killing of a twenty-year-old Dalit lady.
Mustafa also mentioned the 1987 ruling in P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, stating that one need to visit the highest court infrequently. But he went on to say that in order to get the intended outcome, the highest court must also be consistent in the cases it hears.
"While it hears other matters, the top court sometimes rules that a case should be heard in the high court. The Supreme Court's decisions are inconsistent, according to Mustafa.
‘Heart and soul of Constitution’
"I could not refer to any other article except this one (Article 32) if I were asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important—an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity," Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had once declared. It is the essence of the Constitution, its essential core.
"I could not refer to any other article except this one (Article 32) if I were asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important—an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity," said Dr. B.R. Ambedkar at one point. It is the fundamental idea at the center of the Constitution.
In the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla case, a five-judge Supreme Court bench decided that the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 would be suspended during a national emergency in 1975.
In an effort to "restore the Constitution to the condition it was in before the Emergency," the Janata Party passed the 44th Amendment following its victory in the general elections of 1977. According to the amendment, any modifications to the fundamental framework of the Constitution may only be implemented with the consent of a majority of voters in a referendum that at least fifty-one percent of the electorate attended.
A five-judge Supreme Court panel ruled in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla case of 1975 that the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 would be suspended in the event of a national emergency.
After winning the 1977 general elections, the Janata Party enacted the 44th Amendment in an attempt to "restore the Constitution to the condition it was in before the Emergency." The amendment states that any changes to the basic structure of the Constitution can only be enacted with the approval of the majority of voters in a referendum that at least 51% of voters participated in.
You must be logged in to post a comment.