01-24-2007, 11:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Constitution changes out of question: Experts </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Constitutional experts and legal luminaries are outraged at the political outcry to review the Constitution to meet political objectives following the recent Supreme Court verdict on Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
Stating that judicial scrutiny of laws is an inseparable feature of the Constitution, the experts on constitutional law scoffed at the demand to keep out laws from judicial review, calling it a "political gimmick " with no basis under law.
Noted constitutional lawyer Rajiv Dhavan said, "the recent Supreme Court judgement clearly holds a set of principles that will determine the fate of any legislation or amendment to the Constitution in future. In these circumstances, what purpose will a constitutional amendment serve".
By ending protection to any law/regulation afforded under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, Dhavan said<b>, "The back of Article 31B (of Constitution) is broken." Meant to protect agrarian laws, the Ninth Schedule came with Article 31B resulting from a Constitutional amendment in 1951. It served as a "protective umbrella" for laws against judicial review, which violated fundamental rights of citizens. </b>
The recent SC verdict had thrown all laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, open to judicial scrutiny. This meant that the Tamil Nadu reservation law that provides for 69 per cent reservation would be tested on the principles of reasonableness as given under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Under DMK pressure, the Congress had indicated it has an open mind on demand to review the Constitution.
Terming the demands by political parties to amend the Constitution as "meaningless", Dhavan said, "<b>It is a political gimmick to impress the voters," adding, "What review will they make for any (Constitutional) amendment will suffer the same fate."</b>
Commenting on the political parties' anxiety to wriggle out of the "open scrutiny" of laws by the judiciary, constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap said, "Where do they (the Government) have the cheeks to suggest a constitutional review. "In 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution had recommended changes in Article 31B to the extent that laws on agrarian reforms and those which provide reasonable quantum of reservation to be afforded immunity from judicial review."
Terming the recent political statements to exclude judicial scrutiny of laws under the Ninth Schedule as "unreasonable", senior advocate and former member of the Law Commission NM Ghatate said, "<b>The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution has the potential of destroying the democratic structure of Constitution." </b>
<b>According to him, the Supreme Court had correctly held, "an organ that makes laws cannot decide the law. It is the job of an independent institution, namely the judiciary."</b>
A line has been drawn between vote-bank politics and the democratic process, he said, adding, "Parliament must know where political interest ends and national interest begins." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Constitutional experts and legal luminaries are outraged at the political outcry to review the Constitution to meet political objectives following the recent Supreme Court verdict on Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
Stating that judicial scrutiny of laws is an inseparable feature of the Constitution, the experts on constitutional law scoffed at the demand to keep out laws from judicial review, calling it a "political gimmick " with no basis under law.
Noted constitutional lawyer Rajiv Dhavan said, "the recent Supreme Court judgement clearly holds a set of principles that will determine the fate of any legislation or amendment to the Constitution in future. In these circumstances, what purpose will a constitutional amendment serve".
By ending protection to any law/regulation afforded under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, Dhavan said<b>, "The back of Article 31B (of Constitution) is broken." Meant to protect agrarian laws, the Ninth Schedule came with Article 31B resulting from a Constitutional amendment in 1951. It served as a "protective umbrella" for laws against judicial review, which violated fundamental rights of citizens. </b>
The recent SC verdict had thrown all laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, open to judicial scrutiny. This meant that the Tamil Nadu reservation law that provides for 69 per cent reservation would be tested on the principles of reasonableness as given under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Under DMK pressure, the Congress had indicated it has an open mind on demand to review the Constitution.
Terming the demands by political parties to amend the Constitution as "meaningless", Dhavan said, "<b>It is a political gimmick to impress the voters," adding, "What review will they make for any (Constitutional) amendment will suffer the same fate."</b>
Commenting on the political parties' anxiety to wriggle out of the "open scrutiny" of laws by the judiciary, constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap said, "Where do they (the Government) have the cheeks to suggest a constitutional review. "In 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution had recommended changes in Article 31B to the extent that laws on agrarian reforms and those which provide reasonable quantum of reservation to be afforded immunity from judicial review."
Terming the recent political statements to exclude judicial scrutiny of laws under the Ninth Schedule as "unreasonable", senior advocate and former member of the Law Commission NM Ghatate said, "<b>The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution has the potential of destroying the democratic structure of Constitution." </b>
<b>According to him, the Supreme Court had correctly held, "an organ that makes laws cannot decide the law. It is the job of an independent institution, namely the judiciary."</b>
A line has been drawn between vote-bank politics and the democratic process, he said, adding, "Parliament must know where political interest ends and national interest begins." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->