00:00All right, joining me right on top is Dr. Rabhishek Manu Singhvi.
00:03He's a fourth-term MP, eminent jurist, senior advocate, Supreme Court,
00:07also a member of the Congress, senior Congress leader.
00:11Also, importantly, viewers, he has been the lead counsel in this case
00:15where he represented the government of Tamil Nadu.
00:18Appreciate you taking the time out, Mr. Singhvi, and joining us.
00:21First up, there's been a fair amount of commentary, Mr. Singhvi,
00:24on if the Vice President was out of line.
00:27You know, many suggest it's a constitutional, largely a ceremonial post.
00:32Should he have made these comments?
00:35With the deepest and greatest respect and genuine respect to the Honorable Vice President,
00:41my answer is an emphatic no.
00:45He is the holder of high constitutional office,
00:48second in the warrant of precedence,
00:52and there is no occasion, no necessity, no requirement,
00:55no obligation to comment on all and sundry and issues like this.
01:00Does the President comment on this, Preeti?
01:04Have predecessor Vice Presidents commented routinely on such matters?
01:10Should the next person in the line of warrant of precedence,
01:13the Prime Minister, comment on such matters?
01:15My respectful answer is no.
01:18I think clearly, it was uncalled for, unwarranted, and unnecessary,
01:23before we come, of course, to the nitty-gritty of things like Article 142 and the case itself.
01:27But certainly, this was not…
01:30In fact, it is completely out of sync with the very high position
01:35which this is involved in the Vice President's post.
01:38Mr. Singhvi, you know, you had represented the Tamil Nadu government in the Supreme Court
01:44where you had argued that the governor's action violated the Constitution
01:47and in its verdict, the Supreme Court had held that Tamil Nadu's governor's reservation of 10 bills
01:52for President's assent is illegal and had used its extraordinary powers under Article 142.
01:58So, in this particular case, if you're going point by point,
02:01you had Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, the Vice President,
02:03who actually stated, described Article 142 as, and I quote,
02:09nuclear missile against democratic forces,
02:12which allows the judiciary to act as a super parliament
02:15by enacting laws as seen in the case of Tamil Nadu.
02:19How do you respond to that characterization, Abhishek Manu Singhvi?
02:22Before I use my own adjectives to deal with those very colorful adjectives you've just quoted,
02:29you judge and your viewers judge for yourself.
02:33142, let's just stick to the law first.
02:35We'll come to the facts later.
02:37142 was not created yesterday.
02:38It was not created for this case.
02:40142 was created by persons far wiser than all of us put together,
02:45our constant assembly.
02:46It was created by Bhavasava Ambedkar and his drafting committee.
02:50It was created exclusively for the Supreme Court.
02:54It was deliberately and consciously stated not to be given to any other court in India,
02:59including any high court.
03:00The idea was that this is a sui generis, special, unique power
03:04to the apex court, who is the custodian of the trust of the entire nation,
03:09to do complete justice in very, very extreme cases
03:13or cases which deserve it from going beyond the mere letter of the law,
03:17to implement the spirit of the law.
03:20to do complete justice.
03:21Secondly, you must remember, Preeti,
03:23it is not an uncanalized power.
03:25It is not Jangala Raj.
03:27It is not chaotic.
03:28It is cribbed, canalized, circumscribed, conditioned
03:32by at least 20 to 40 major Supreme Court judgments
03:36over the 75-year-old journey.
03:38It is exercised on criteria laid down in those judgments.
03:41So, to suggest, all I can say is the missile is probably coming from elsewhere than the Supreme Court.
03:49The Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional power.
03:51When it strikes down law, when it strikes down executive action,
03:55when it strikes down governor's action,
03:57it routinely does it in 356, it is in Burmai.
04:01Can you call it a super parliament?
04:03I will come to the facts of this case and make good to you presently
04:07how, if at all there was an understatement of the law and the facts by the Supreme Court,
04:14everything said there was completely deserved.
04:16But as far as the law is concerned, I think this is clearly not justified language for a judgment.
04:26Dr. Singhvi, you know, the fact is, you were the lead counsel on this particular case.
04:31You've explained a bit on, you know, invoking section or article 142.
04:36On the other hand, what many suggest that possibly when it came down to the role of the governor,
04:43the top court was correct,
04:44but there has been a legal discourse which seems to suggest that when Mr. Dhankar objected to the court
04:50setting a three-month deadline to the president to act on bills claiming it undermines constitutional role.
04:57You know, that is a gray area.
05:01I will come to the president in a minute.
05:04The first primary question I ask myself and you and your viewers,
05:09none of these high constitutional authorities thought it right to comment on
05:13or chastise other constitutional authorities who sat on bills for one point, one and a quarter years.
05:20In the case of Tamil Nadu, you are now chastising the Supreme Court.
05:25Was it right or wrong for a governor neither to pass the bill,
05:29assent to it nor send it back?
05:31So, a decision not to decide became a decision.
05:34Now, look at the other step before I come to the president.
05:37In the first place, you don't decide.
05:39And in the first place, while it's pending with you, you do not also refer it to the president.
05:45The Tamil Nadu government goes to the court.
05:47Immediately, you send it back to the Tamil Nadu government.
05:49It requires the Tamil Nadu government to go to court for the governor to refer it back.
05:54When the Tamil Nadu government sends it a second time,
05:57you know that you are bound.
05:59So, you refer it to the president this time.
06:02Did when Baba Sahib said that institutions are only as good or bad as the governors or the persons or the man or woman who mans it,
06:10this is what he meant.
06:13The constitution can't tell the governor everything how to do it.
06:16It is the spirit which is being violated by high constitutional functionalities from Tamil Nadu to Bengal to Punjab
06:23and many other states.
06:25And it is happening particularly in opposition rule states where you are supposed to be the agent of the central government
06:31as if you are acting as some kind of a, you know, obstruction or barrier to governance.
06:38Now, let's come to the president.
06:40The structure of the articles of the constitution which deal with the assent to a bill by either the president or the governor
06:47are identical or almost identical.
06:51There is no difference.
06:52The only difference arises that the president cannot refer it further to a president.
06:56That is the difference with the governor.
06:59But as far as the time limit is concerned, if it is kosher to put a time limit for the governor,
07:05in what way is an article 142 misused if the same time limit is put for the president?
07:10It doesn't mean that the current president has done anything like that.
07:13As a matter of fact, with the current government, to imagine that the president would keep it pending
07:17for a year and a half would be unthinkable.
07:20But it is not unthinkable for an opposition to a state like Tamil Nadu.
07:24It is not unthinkable for states like West Bengal and Punjab.
07:27But in theory, why should a president sit on it?
07:31There is literally one more thing.
07:32The governor who was involved in these 10 bills or whatever, 11 bills, all the bills fell squarely in list 2,
07:40which is exclusive state competence.
07:43There was no reason to hold it or then to refer it.
07:46There were local matters like municipalities or sewerage or this and that.
07:49So, really, you know, it's the spirit of how you operate the constitution which matters.
07:55And when all this is happening under your nose with the governors,
07:59why are high constitutional functionaries not commenting adversely on that gubernatorial overreach
08:06instead of chastising the Supreme Court?
08:09And, you know, the office of governor was intended by Baba Sahib.
08:13He said, there can't be two swords in one scabbard.
08:16The chief minister is the governor of that state in terms of governance.
08:22And you can't obstruct his governance by keeping his spending.
08:25The same applies to the central government and the president.
08:29Yes, I agree that the deemed ascent is not written in the constitution.
08:34Yes, I agree that three months or two months is not written in the constitution.
08:37But if 142 is not used for this, what is 142 created for?
08:41Why did Baba Sahib and the Constitute Assembly give this power exclusively
08:45as a unique power to the Supreme Court?
08:47Only for such situations where governance has been obstructed and stopped
08:52by persons who are entrusted with governors.
08:55So, who will guard the guardians?
08:57Who will govern the governors?
08:58Only the Supreme Court.
09:01Dr. Singh, the last two questions that I'd ask you.
09:03You know, the Tamil Nadu judgment has been, A, hailed historic by some,
09:07unprecedented also by many.
09:10Do you think this judgment is somewhere down the line going to set a precedent
09:14for, or the word it will shape, the state and center relationship,
09:20especially where opposition-governed states are concerned?
09:22Before I answer your question, five seconds on the fact that people forget
09:27what meticulous research industry and comprehensiveness went into this judgment.
09:33The bench more than once gave us detailed queries, nuances, issues,
09:38sought opinion of all, including the Attorney General on our side,
09:41got researchers put on each of those issues.
09:44A lot of pain and effort went into this.
09:46It's not a casual thing on which casual comments can be made.
09:48Secondly, absolutely, yes, it is already a precedent.
09:52It's a judgment of the Supreme Court, which under Articles 141 and 142
09:56is fully binding on everybody in this country,
09:58including the highest constitutional authorities.
10:01And they are obliged to implement it in letter and spirit.
10:03That's what 141, Red with 142 means.
10:07Thirdly, it is a clear message.
10:10A somewhat delayed, much desired, much necessary,
10:16vitally necessary message to all governors.
10:19You are not supporting agents of the central government.
10:24You are not there to obstruct governance.
10:27You are not there as a parallel chief minister.
10:30You are there to aid and assist governance
10:33and be the overall friend, philosopher and guide
10:36instead of being two swords in one scabbard,
10:40two chief ministers in one state.
10:42I think that larger message is also implicit in the judgment.
10:46But I would strongly support every word and the industry
10:52and the care and the caution with judgment is written.
10:55And unfortunately, I think some strong words used,
10:58adjectives of judgment are completely uncalled for,
11:00unjustified and unnecessary.
11:01But the vice president, Dr. Singh, we did raise,
11:05which are shared by many,
11:07broader concerns about judicial accountability,
11:11you know, overreach or, you know, judicial activism.
11:15And on many accounts,
11:17be it the large hauls of cash that were found in a judge's house
11:20and the kind of action, you know, that was taken.
11:23Or even you've had the speaker or, you know,
11:26the former law minister Kiran Rajiju speak about
11:28the NJSE verdict or the colligium.
11:31So he has raised broader concerns,
11:33which many are speaking of today.
11:36First of all, with greatest respect,
11:39unfortunately, there is no connectivity
11:41in speaking in the same breath about this judgment
11:44and the episode involving Justice Verma.
11:49You can't begin to connect the North Pole and the South Pole
11:52for no reason at all.
11:53I don't understand how one reflects on the other
11:56in any remotest manner.
11:57It was equally inappropriate to link them.
11:59I'm saying so very clearly.
12:01Secondly, everybody knows that there is a procedure established,
12:05not created yesterday for you or me
12:06or for Justice Verma.
12:08An in-house procedure has been in operation for decades.
12:11It is under that procedure
12:12that the Chief Justice of India has taken steps.
12:15Three vice persons,
12:16two Chief Justice and one Lady Judge of Seniority
12:18are looking into it.
12:20The report will be out soon.
12:21Why should we suddenly change that procedure?
12:24Had that procedure not been followed by Yashwant Verma,
12:26is there any other law
12:26which the Honorable Vice President would want us to follow?
12:30How can you hearken to a system
12:33which is in existence being followed
12:35versus a non-existent system
12:38of no other system is available to do this?
12:40Yes, if you have,
12:41if you pass a law in future
12:42for these matters to go short of impeachment
12:45to the parliament,
12:46then that will be the law followed.
12:47In fact, I was chairman of a committee way back
12:49in 2011,
12:50a parliamentary standing committee
12:51which recommended the judicial accountability bill
12:55that never became law.
12:56But till such time,
12:57it's the only in-house procedure which will govern.
13:00And lastly,
13:01it is not the time and place
13:03because the whole comment was on the judgment.
13:05It has nothing to do with the Yashwant Verma episode.
13:08But let us not be,
13:11let us hasten slowly.
13:12Let us not use a push-button system
13:14that Yashwant Verma episode means push-button
13:17and lo and behold,
13:19by a magical wand,
13:20you have NJAC
13:21and all these hills vanish into thin air
13:24because of this magical wand called NJAC.
13:27Please don't use one to implement the other.
13:30Please don't use one to further some agenda
13:32which is other than relevant.
13:36All right, Dr. Singh,
13:37we appreciate you taking the time out
13:39and joining us this evening.
13:40Thank you there.
Comments