07-27-2005, 06:11 PM
Govt flays SC remarks, hints at alternative to IMDT Act
Pioneer News Service / New Delhi
The Government on Tuesday gave firm indications of its intention to bring about a comprehensive legislation to make up for the repeal of the Illegal Migrants (Detection) by Tribunal Act while asserting its right to differ with the Supreme Court's observations. The Supreme Court, in fact, came under fire from the entire United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the Lok Sabha during the debate on the IMDT Act.
The Government clearly didn't appreciate the strong observations made by the Supreme Court and felt it had delved into something which didn't fall into its domain. The usual cautious approach while dealing with issues related to judiciary was certainly missing and there was systematic disapproval of the court's remarks. This was endorsed by Speaker Somnath Chatterjee with his repeated comments like "what law is needed should be only by Parliament and not by any other forum".
The first sparks were shown by none other than the Leader of the House, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, who asserted the Government's rights to differ with the Supreme Court. He said, "I am not one of those courageous leaders who would cross the path of the Supreme Court. But don't we have the right to disagree with the Supreme Court and pass another legislation?"
The Defence Minister added: "We should not forget the first constitutional amendment was done even before the first general election only to correct an SC judgment. The court's observations and repeal of the Act cannot prevent Parliament from taking measures to protect the rights of genuine citizens." He also argued against the suggestion that Foreigners Act gave a better option, saying the answer would have to be found somewhere else.
What Mr Mukherjee expressed in a subtle way was bluntly put forward by the Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal. Arguing that all legal conflicts cannot be solved in a court of law, Mr Sibal said, "the Supreme Court is well within its rights to strike down a piece of legislation but it clearly didn't look upon the consequential effects of its judgment." He lamented that Leader of Opposition LK Advani, while moving the adjournment motion, had supported the court's observations and asked the Government to accept it.
Mr Sibal said he never saw judges attributing motives to a legislation. Stating that the court, by saying that a deeper analysis will reveal the Act had been purposely made so inactive as to give shelter to illegal migrants, he said, "Motives have been attributed to Parliament, the elected body, the last word on enacting legislation. Every Constitution Bench has said the court can't attribute motives to legislature."
He repeated Mr Mukherjee's argument that Mr Nagendra Singh, the Indian representative at the UN, had described the massive influx of people as external aggression in an entirely different context and what had happened in Assam, immigration since nineteenth century, couldn't be taken as external aggression. He asked why the court did not specify which country is the aggressor and asserted these things didn't fall in the court's domain.
Mr Sibal added, "this has far reaching consequences. This gives judicial imprimatur that a country has committed external aggression. These unfortunate observations have been made which can effect the relations of two countries. This is a matter of great concern and we in the executive will look into the broader consequences... The Congress will do what is in the best interest of the nation even in the light of the court's verdict."
The Congress stand got the backing of the Left, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party too. SP's Mohan Singh said the verdict was more political and less legal. "Whenever the Supreme Court gave political judgements, Parliament rose to redeem the situation. The GoM now formed must come out with a political alternative to the political judgement of the court. Parliament must do it in the national interest."
Mr Basudev Acharya, the CPI (M) member, lamented the court based its observations on the report submitted by the former Assam Governor. He also took strong objection to the court accepting the situation as external aggression and asked if ULFA was run in Assam by illegal immigrants. He said if external aggression was on in Assam for such a long time, why nobody ever raised it in Parliament.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=3
So there u go, nothing will come of the supreme court judgement, as usual the Congress and the other terrorist parties will screw India again, the fate of Assam will be sealed in a few years.
Pioneer News Service / New Delhi
The Government on Tuesday gave firm indications of its intention to bring about a comprehensive legislation to make up for the repeal of the Illegal Migrants (Detection) by Tribunal Act while asserting its right to differ with the Supreme Court's observations. The Supreme Court, in fact, came under fire from the entire United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the Lok Sabha during the debate on the IMDT Act.
The Government clearly didn't appreciate the strong observations made by the Supreme Court and felt it had delved into something which didn't fall into its domain. The usual cautious approach while dealing with issues related to judiciary was certainly missing and there was systematic disapproval of the court's remarks. This was endorsed by Speaker Somnath Chatterjee with his repeated comments like "what law is needed should be only by Parliament and not by any other forum".
The first sparks were shown by none other than the Leader of the House, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, who asserted the Government's rights to differ with the Supreme Court. He said, "I am not one of those courageous leaders who would cross the path of the Supreme Court. But don't we have the right to disagree with the Supreme Court and pass another legislation?"
The Defence Minister added: "We should not forget the first constitutional amendment was done even before the first general election only to correct an SC judgment. The court's observations and repeal of the Act cannot prevent Parliament from taking measures to protect the rights of genuine citizens." He also argued against the suggestion that Foreigners Act gave a better option, saying the answer would have to be found somewhere else.
What Mr Mukherjee expressed in a subtle way was bluntly put forward by the Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal. Arguing that all legal conflicts cannot be solved in a court of law, Mr Sibal said, "the Supreme Court is well within its rights to strike down a piece of legislation but it clearly didn't look upon the consequential effects of its judgment." He lamented that Leader of Opposition LK Advani, while moving the adjournment motion, had supported the court's observations and asked the Government to accept it.
Mr Sibal said he never saw judges attributing motives to a legislation. Stating that the court, by saying that a deeper analysis will reveal the Act had been purposely made so inactive as to give shelter to illegal migrants, he said, "Motives have been attributed to Parliament, the elected body, the last word on enacting legislation. Every Constitution Bench has said the court can't attribute motives to legislature."
He repeated Mr Mukherjee's argument that Mr Nagendra Singh, the Indian representative at the UN, had described the massive influx of people as external aggression in an entirely different context and what had happened in Assam, immigration since nineteenth century, couldn't be taken as external aggression. He asked why the court did not specify which country is the aggressor and asserted these things didn't fall in the court's domain.
Mr Sibal added, "this has far reaching consequences. This gives judicial imprimatur that a country has committed external aggression. These unfortunate observations have been made which can effect the relations of two countries. This is a matter of great concern and we in the executive will look into the broader consequences... The Congress will do what is in the best interest of the nation even in the light of the court's verdict."
The Congress stand got the backing of the Left, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party too. SP's Mohan Singh said the verdict was more political and less legal. "Whenever the Supreme Court gave political judgements, Parliament rose to redeem the situation. The GoM now formed must come out with a political alternative to the political judgement of the court. Parliament must do it in the national interest."
Mr Basudev Acharya, the CPI (M) member, lamented the court based its observations on the report submitted by the former Assam Governor. He also took strong objection to the court accepting the situation as external aggression and asked if ULFA was run in Assam by illegal immigrants. He said if external aggression was on in Assam for such a long time, why nobody ever raised it in Parliament.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=3
So there u go, nothing will come of the supreme court judgement, as usual the Congress and the other terrorist parties will screw India again, the fate of Assam will be sealed in a few years.