00:00Well, I think his criticism is misplaced, and I feel that the, as far as the comment
00:06is concerned, it leans towards excess and it amounts more or less to hyperbole, which
00:13people in constitutional positions should be wary of indulging in, because there has
00:21to be both caution and restraint when you talk about these issues which are both legal
00:25and emotive. By stirring emotions, you take the mind away from the legality and create
00:32a misconception about the whole controversy. And this misconception of the controversy can
00:36have long-term consequences, because it can create a view which seems to discredit the
00:41system. Now, I am not saying that any system should be averse to scrutiny or criticism, but
00:47the criticism should be warranted and the scrutiny should be sensible. What the Vice President
00:52has ignored is provisions of the Constitution which are interpreted. The timelines are governed
01:00by distinct provisions of the Constitution. In that particular case, 200, 201. 200 goes
01:05to the Governor, 201 goes to the President. This was the interpretation of those provisions,
01:10and whatever I could read and whatever the Vice President has said, I don't see any comment
01:15on the reasoning of the Supreme Court on those aspects. If there is nothing infirm in what
01:22the Supreme Court has said there, then the reasoning which the Supreme Court is saying is correct
01:27and not faulty. What the Supreme Court has done in that case is, it has revisited the law
01:33to the extent it gave absolute discretion to the Governor and in some way exempted it from scrutiny.
01:40But the consequence of that exemption from scrutiny was Governor stalling bills. Now, when the Governor
01:45stalls bills and the Governor, even according to the Constitution, is part of the Legislature.
01:50In that event, intervention becomes necessary, both in terms of the manner in which the articles
01:55are drafted and the principles of law which govern. Everything has been done in a reasonable
01:59period of time. So, the Supreme Court said that we trusted you, but you failed our trust,
02:05and therefore we have got no option but to intervene by setting the timelines, because the law is
02:10supreme. So, this is, you will allow discretion, but you will not in any way concede that discretion,
02:17where the discretion leans towards arbitrariness. And to in some way restrict the arbitrariness,
02:22they say that we leave it to you to decide, but to decide within a particular time. Now, deciding
02:27expeditiously, right, is no nuclear missile.
02:30Sir, do you see any conflict between the government and the government?
02:34No, why should they, there should be conflict. The judiciary cannot be a wing of the government.
02:43The judiciary will always come when there is a conflict, when there is a controversy, when
02:48there are contrarian views. The judiciary is not supposed in every, judiciary is not supposed
02:54to oppose the government for the sake of opposing the government. But the judiciary cannot possibly
02:57be seen as being on the same side of the government at all point, because as far as the government
03:00is litigant in the judiciary, as far as the laws are concerned, they are subject to the
03:04scrutiny. They may be someone aggrieved by the law which is passed. The government itself
03:09may have earned in passing the law. The court is not supposed to act on the assumption that
03:15it is to defer to what the government does. The court has to look, scrutinize it to see
03:20its worth. So, the fact that you are, the court is considering legal controversies arising
03:28out of the government's act shows that we have got a vibrant and effective legal system.
03:34That's a tribute to the worth and efficacy of our system and we should celebrate it.
03:39Why should we look at the conflict and why should we averse to conflict? As long as there
03:43is a means of resolution. Conflicts are welcome. Because conflict shows an intelligent and active
03:49quality.
Comments