Harsh phrases” must be avoided through Supreme Court judges

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad stated that Supreme Court judges need to chorus from “harsh phrases” in their judgments. The commentary changed into made inside the context of a debate within the Rajya Sabha on the passing of sure amendments to the Aadhaar Act. During the talk, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh had criticized the passing of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. To this give up, he had quoted from Justice DY Chandrachud’s dissenting judgment in the Aadhaar verdict handed in September ultimate 12 months.


In para 117 of his dissenting judgment, Justice Chandrachud had criticized the Union of India for superseding the function of the Rajya Sabha via passing the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill in the Lok Sabha. The judgment states, “The Rajya Sabha has a critical function inside the making of legal guidelines. Superseding the authority of the Rajya Sabha is in battle with the constitutional scheme and the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It constitutes fraud at the Constitution.”

Yesterday, in reaction to Ramesh’s quoting of the judgment, Ravi Shankar Prasad stated, “Parliament has the proper to undo a judgment [of the Supreme Court] using casting off the idea of the judgment.” He criticized Justice Chandrachud, albeit without naming him, for the “harsh words” utilized in his dissenting judgment. During his speech defending the Aadhaar Amendment Bill, Prasad said, “Bahut vinamrata se Ek Baat Kehna Chahta hoon. Supreme Court ke nyaymurtiyon ko Samman hai, lekin “constitutional fraud” Jaise Shandon ke prayog nahin hone chahiye.” (I want to mention something with utmost politeness. I even respect Supreme Court judges, but they must now not use phrases like “constitutional fraud.”)

He introduced, “I can say with a complete experience of obligation that harsh words like “constitutional fraud” must be prevented even by way of a lone judge who is a dissenting judge.” [Watch the video of Ravi Shankar Prasad’s speech] He went on to refer to some other comment made via Justice Chandrachud in any other judgment.

“Woh about Vidhan choose hai. Unhone Ek doosre case major binary Kiya. Aur mujhe ek baar unke saamne tippanni karni padi, Vigyan Bhavan me, Law Day par. Unhone kaha ki Bharat ke Samvidhan ko banane waale yeh jaante the ki bahumat ka sarkar tanashah hoti hai. Yeh kahaan se le aaye woh?”

(He is a totally discovered decide. He had held in another judgment – and I had to confront him at the Law Day celebrations at Vigyan Bhavan – that the makers of the Constitution knew that majority authorities could cause dictatorships. Where did he get this from?)

He concluded, “These kinds of sweeping remarks had nice be prevented.” After the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Aadhaar Act even as placing down some provisions via its judgment passed last year, the Centre brought the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2018, which purportedly aims to address issues concerning the Scheme. In March this year, the Union Cabinet had promulgated the Aadhaar Ordinance, 2019, after the Amendment Bill did not get exceeded throughout the Budget Session of Parliament.

The Ordinance envisions amendments to the Indian Telegraph Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, making it voluntary for citizens to use Aadhaar as evidence of ID. This efficacious method that Aadhaar can be used as voluntary ID proof for acquiring a SIM card and starting a bank account. However, the amendments make it clear that “no consumer or beneficial proprietor shall be denied services for not having an Aadhaar quantity.” By creating a new Section 33A, the Bill, and now the Ordinance, objectives to punish entities failing to comply with provisions of the Act with civil penalties that could quantity to a fine of 1 crore rupees for every contravention.

Related posts

Myanmar farmers beneath siege from land law

Naomi Mcguire

Top Court Stays High Court Order Stopping Retrospective Black Money Law

Naomi Mcguire

11 Effective Tips for Hiring a Personal Injury Lawyer

Naomi Mcguire