- 2 days ago
On the 76th Constitution Day, a special report examines claims of an 'assault' on the Indian Constitution. Senior Advocates and MPs, Abhishek Manu Singhvi of the Congress party and Mahesh Jethmalani of the BJP, present opposing views on the state of democracy. The debate covers the condition of institutional pillars like the judiciary and Election Commission, and values such as secularism, federalism, and the protection of minority rights. Singhvi states, 'the whole idea of creating a Constitution in the first place is to be anti-majoritarian,' while former Solicitor General Harish Salve comments, 'Democracy is a ceaseless endeavour... not a safe harbor.' The program also reports on the deaths of two young athletes in Haryana, including 16-year-old national-level basketball player Hardik Rathi, in separate incidents involving the collapse of basketball poles, raising questions about the safety of sports infrastructure.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00But my top story tonight. Today is the day when the republic was given a constitution,
00:06a document that many believe transformed this country. It's an important day, therefore,
00:13in India's history and the nation celebrated the 76th Constitution Day. But it also should
00:19come with some introspection. Is the constitution in danger, as the opposition parties suggest,
00:25or does it still remain a strong and thriving protector of our democracy? That's the question
00:31I'm going to raise with some of the country's top legal minds today. But first, to remind you that
00:36our political leadership sparked off a debate on this occasion. While a special event was held at
00:41the Central Hall of Samvidan Sadhan, attended by the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and
00:47Leader of Opposition and MPs, President Draupadi Murbu claimed the constitution helps India move
00:52away from a colonial mindset and embrace a nationalistic approach. Prime Minister Narendra
00:57Modi, in an open letter, also paid tribute to the constitution, saying it enabled a person like
01:02him to serve for 24 continuous years. But the opposition, on the other hand, has also hit out.
01:09Leader of the opposition, Rahul Gandhi, took a pledge once again to protect and shield the
01:13constitution from what he said was an assault it was facing. He urged everyone to take a pledge
01:19not to allow any kind of attack on the constitution. So the big question I want to raise,
01:26is the constitution a true protector of our democracy? My first guest joining me now is Abhishek Manu
01:37the fourth time sitting MP of the Congress, but also himself a senior lawyer and someone who has
01:45studied the constitution over the years. Appreciate your joining us, Dr. Singhvi. Is it an exaggeration
01:52on this special day to say as your leader, Rahul Gandhi said, is that not fear mongering?
01:59You're on mute, sir. You're on mute, Dr. Singhvi.
02:06There are no binaries in such debates. You know, we frame it black and white, never. Constitution
02:13undoubtedly is our protector. Constitution undoubtedly is a fantastic concept, commitment, idea.
02:19And I have a personal, you know, remembrance about it because my father drafted the charter for the
02:26Law Day, which has now become the Constitution Day rightly. After almost 30 years, it was celebrated
02:31across the country in the Supreme Court and the High Courts as Law Day. And he had hand drafted the
02:36charter. But ultimately, we have to, nobody who's debating today is entirely wrong or right.
02:43Nobody's saying that it's a binary of black and white. But we certainly have huge areas, humongous areas of
02:50operational improvement. It's a constitution.
02:54Give me one example. No, no, let's be, it's not me who struck the binary, it's the politicians who have
02:59given me two or three areas where you specifically believe that constitution is in danger.
03:05I'll give you more than one, but only one sentence before that. We, as Ambedkar said, a constitution by itself
03:12is neither good or bad. It is man who is wild. How you operate it and the institutions, man or woman by person.
03:18So let me come to my examples. There are, Rajdeep, institutional pillars of Indian democracy and there are
03:25non-institutional pillars of Indian democracy. Non-institutional are sometimes more important. Secularism, a very
03:31little known word of our fraternity. Federalism. Now you put your hand on your heart and tell me the much abused
03:39word secularism, the much misunderstood word by any reckoning. Can it not be said that large parts of it,
03:45large facets of it are endangered daily in our lives? That's one fraternity, which is the antithesis of
03:52divisiveness, of doubt and suspicion on brother against brother, is a very closely linked concept
03:59of secularism. That also is in everyday incidents we find endangered. And so also I would say with all
04:06the nice rhetoric about cooperative federalism, competitive federalism, actually federalism from
04:12the governors to the fiscal transfers to the nature of the actions of sometimes governors,
04:22the supari agents of the center, etc. All three non-institutional pillars are clearly endangered.
04:28Let's come to the institutional pillars. There are very many from parliament, election commission,
04:34judiciary, CAG, the investigative agencies, and so many more. Now, again, we don't have time to go into
04:44individual examples, but can you really say that in the last many, many years, there has not been a
04:49diminution of several institutions. Why? Because you have a overriding sense of control freakism.
04:57You must control an institution, the whole object of which is not to be designed for control. It is
05:02designed to run the constitution, not for your control. That is found in investigative agencies,
05:08which are one smaller part of our constitutional scheme. But certainly parliament, the kind of
05:13overarching divisiveness we have in parliament, as if a majority gives you the right to, you know,
05:19do anything you like it, however you like it. The election commission has come in for a lot of
05:23question marks. And, you know, you can always have a debate that this is all wrong and the
05:27election commission is being attacked. But today, the attitude of the election commission is as a
05:32competitor in the political scene, which should never be. It's an empire. So you're talking about
05:36institutional elements of the constitution and non-institutional elements that you believe are
05:43under some kind of siege or threat, some of which are basic structure features of this constitution.
05:49I am reminded and I'm going to ask all my guests this. Nani Palkhiwala, legendary jurist, saying it is
05:55my firm conviction that it is not the constitution which has failed the people, but it is our chosen
06:00representatives who have failed the constitution. So we have a first class document, which has been over
06:06the years eroded, including by your party in the 1975 emergency, dare I remind you, all of which have
06:13led at some way to an assault on the constitution. So while you tell me about democratic rights today
06:19and institutional infirmities today, there will be those who will say those infirmities also existed
06:24when Congress governments were in power. Every government has in some way or the other assaulted the
06:28constitution. Absolutely. Nobody can say that anybody is completely blemishless. But let me tell you,
06:36is this not water-boultry? So something happened in 1977, which may be considered a constitutional
06:44aberration. Though constitutional aberration is an oxymoron, but let's take that. Does it have any
06:50charter or license for what to do today? What kind of water-boultry is this? Why should you take
06:55you back to then? We are concerned with here and now. We are concerned at least with 2014 to 25,
07:01a clear decade. Is it an answer to say that something wrong happened then? Of course wrongs must have
07:05happened. But today, I have no hesitation in saying that the degree also, that is one is that argument
07:11of water-boultry, the other is the degree. The degree, the consistent degree, the invariable degree,
07:19the unvarying degree of several of these institutions, starting from the non-institutional
07:24pillars of fraternity and secularism and federalism, has been consistently eroding.
07:28With due regard, should they not be protected by the profession which you are a part of,
07:32the judiciary? If there are these transgressions taking place of the constitution, if there's a
07:37violation of the fundamental rights of the individual, I would have presumed that is where
07:41the Supreme Court is supposed to step in. Has it done what it should do?
07:45What do you think we do every day, Rajdeep? The court does it and we do it as lawyers. But,
07:50there is an important point to be remembered. Adjudication through courts is individuated.
07:57It is not the class mass for the whole nation as a whole. So, you have a problem, you go to court,
08:02there's a notice, there's a reply, there's a rejoinder and maybe you get relief, maybe you don't get
08:06relief. That is not a satisfactory way to turn to the court saying, why are you not the bomb for all
08:12our ills? Governance cannot hold up. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, sir. The courts are,
08:16my argument is the courts have not done enough to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
08:21When article 370 was abrogated and many Kashmiris spent years in jail, what happened to habeas corpus
08:28petitions? They were kept pending for years. What happens to the whole doctrine of bail not jail?
08:33So, let's be honest, you know, we can blame parliament and the government in power,
08:38but what about the institutions that run this country, including the judiciary or indeed the media?
08:43So, the answer, the honest, the honest answer, Rajdeep, is that you are only very partially right.
08:49I disagree to about 67 to 70 percent with your remark, but yes, you are right to 30 odd percent
08:55because the courts are ultimately, you are right about the fact that the courts may not have stood us
09:01in good stead in every case, maybe 25, 30 percent. But if we did not have the bulwark of the judiciary,
09:08the whatever protection you have against erosion of these pillars, institutional, would be rampant.
09:14Today, if there is a protection, maybe lesser than it should be. You are right. Individual judges give
09:19us sermons and give the right judgments on bail, not jail. Individual aberrations equally nullify
09:25those sermons. So, those are aberrations. But on the whole, the judiciary has, I would say,
09:30stood us in good stead to a very large percentage.
09:32Is India's constitutional democracy in recession, sir? Do you believe it's in recession? Are we heading
09:40towards an electoral autocracy or is that fear-mongering? Because I hear these words
09:44mentioned by our opposition leaders, we are an electoral autocracy, democracy is in recession,
09:49not only constitution, secularism, federalism,
09:53As I said, I hate to use binaries because all binaries are generalizations and all generalizations
09:58are untrue. But let me tell you that clearly the degree of erosion of these institutional and
10:06non-institutional values, the degree of erosion of the institutions, the degree is much higher now
10:13in the last 10 years than it has ever been. And it's been consistent. It's not a temporary
10:18constitutional aberration like the emergency. It's consistently eroding. Well, the solution is to
10:24realize that majority is not the answer and a license to do everything. On the contrary,
10:32the constitution is created precisely for being anti-majoritalian. There'd be no need for a constitution
10:39if the majority was to prevail. Of course, the majority must govern. But the whole idea of
10:45creating a constitution in the first place is to be anti-majoritarian in so many areas. Religious
10:50rights… So you're making a distinction between majority and majoritarian. Getting a parliamentary
10:54majority does not allow you to become a majoritarian government. Absolutely. Absolutely.
10:59Okay. Let me leave it there. Dr. Singhvi, as always, I appreciate your taking the time
11:06up on this very important debate. A majority government cannot lead to a majoritarian outlook
11:12to the constitution. Every individual must have equal rights. Let's then turn to the other point
11:17of view. Mahesh Jaitpalani now, another senior lawyer. And of course, he's been with the BJP for years
11:23joining me. I appreciate your joining us, Mr. Jaitpalani. How do you see this debate between those who say
11:30today, constitution is in danger? And those who are saying the constitution is the sentinel of our
11:37democracy, we should celebrate our constitution? Well, I don't think the constitution has really
11:45ever been in danger except during that brief period during the emergency. But, you know, I mean,
11:51people may have nuanced differences about how institutions are performing their duty, whether
12:00they're performing their duty well or not, or at all, is possibly a subject matter of debate. But the
12:09constitution by and large has took the test of time. In fact, if you ask me, Rajdeep, its very existence, you know,
12:18instills in people the idea of popular sovereignty. So the fact that you had the people of this country,
12:29right, once overturn or overthrow a government that subverted the constitution. And secondly,
12:38that we have periodic elections every time, which by and large are fair and free. I know there's the
12:44odd carping about EVMs, which is now buried. And you know, then about the new SIR and all that.
12:50But by and large, I think the constitution itself has given people a sense of their own power. And that
12:57for that very reason, I think it survived the test of time. You're saying the constitution has given
13:02people a sense of their own power. Let me challenge you on that by saying there are those who believe the
13:07institutions of our democracy under the guise of the constitution have been captured by whoever is
13:13in power and particularly by all powerful governments like the one we have now. And these captured
13:19institutions, whether they're the election commission or an enforcement directorate, all of them become
13:24subservient to those in power. And that's where the Savidhan is in danger. That's when people's
13:30rights are in danger. Do you agree or not?
13:31I don't know. See, if you're saying that the criticism is that people who should be manning
13:44institutions more independently are in fact becoming more subservient, there may be an element of truth
13:50in that. There may be an element of truth in that. I suppose when you talk about subservience and capture
14:00and all that, you're really talking about the judiciary, right? You're really talking about the judiciary
14:04because the judiciary is supposed to be the empire between compliance and transgression of the
14:11constitution. Sir, Mr. Jaitpalani, the judiciary is supposed to be the empire and supposed to protect
14:17our fundamental rights. But I'll tell you, yesterday, I interviewed Justice Gawai, former chief
14:21justice who just retired. And he said firmly that this country must be run on rule of law and not on rule of
14:28bulldozer. And then I asked him, why is it then that bulldozers are still allowed to be used to
14:33demolish houses without due process? And he said, that's a question you should ask to those who are
14:38meant to implement the laws, effectively passing the buck onto governments and the executive,
14:42the elected representatives who are not doing their function in implementing the laws as laid down by
14:48the constitution, the rights and by the Supreme Court.
14:51But look, first of all, let me tell you, this is a aspect perhaps of sometimes
15:01overzealous executive action. All right. That's an aspect. But that doesn't define the, you know,
15:07in the constitution, the operation of the constitution covers a much wider canvas in this whole country.
15:14Right. And essentially, what it is really a charter, it is really a charter for responsible government.
15:22Right. And that the if government sees to be responsible, the constitution is, you know,
15:29is premised on the principle on the principle that at the end of five years, right, if you are dissatisfied,
15:37then popular sovereignty at the polls has a right to, if there is constitutional overreach,
15:46to remove those who are guilty of that overreach.
15:48Sir, but, you know, do we have a level playing field in what you call free and fair elections?
15:56Given the massive use of money power, the massive use or abuse of state power, the alleged misuse of
16:02agencies like the enforcement directorate. So you have a free and fair election and constitutional democracy in name.
16:09But is it free and fair in reality 76 years later?
16:17I believe it's free and fair in reality. And look, there's, you know, there's no test.
16:23If somebody has an opinion, right, unsupported by any evidence,
16:27then, you know, one can't, one can't, there's no argument here. We are not, there cannot be a rational debate.
16:34Right. It has been tried and tested. As I pointed out, first EVMs were questioned. Right. Now it's this,
16:43you know, vote theory business that's going on. But let me tell you, there's no evidence.
16:49A, if there has never been any evidence put forward. Right. I mean, file an election petition,
16:54give us instances of that. And I'm with you. I think that's, I mean, that's a test of a democracy,
16:59a fair and free election. The litmus test is a fair and free election. But if you just cop about it
17:04all the time, right, you are actually doing a great disservice for the own democracy, which you are a
17:09part of. You participate in elections and predetermined from the very outset, you say this is a result.
17:15Then don't participate. Mr. Jaitmalani, let me raise another contentious issue.
17:20Are minority rights protected? Ambedkar spoke of fraternity, equality,
17:27and liberty as the centerpiece of his, of his constitutional vision. Do you believe that today
17:34minority rights in this country are adequately protected in our constitution? Or is the flaw or
17:39fault lies with those who implement them? Because Nani Palkhiwala, I come back to it.
17:43said, it's not the constitution that has failed the people, but the electorate
17:47representatives who have failed the constitution. Do you agree that on concepts like secularism,
17:51fraternity, minority rights, we have failed?
17:57He did say that. And to a large extent, yes. But Nani Palkhiwala was not talking at a time
18:04when Hindutva, right, was a predominant doctrine. Right. So I don't know what he had in mind,
18:11but certainly I think he was talking more about curtailing of freedoms. He was the champion of
18:18individual liberty and so on and so forth. So I think his perspective came from there.
18:22But sir, it's those individual liberties one fears that are still compromised. You're a lawyer,
18:28you know, a respected senior lawyer. How even the basic principle of bail not jail, as Krishna
18:34Iyer said it out, is getting reversed. Individual liberties are being compromised. People spend years in
18:40jail without a trial, without access to a fair trial. Don't you believe all of this undermines
18:45the constitution? Let me put it even more directly as a senior constitutional lawyer who's appeared
18:51for the government also at times. Can you firmly today put your hand on your heart, sir, and say
18:56that the soul and spirit of the constitution as drafted by Dr. Ambedkar is perfectly safe in today's
19:01India? Put your hand on your heart. I can put my hand on my heart and say with conviction that all
19:12democracies and all constitutional democracies in general, right, have severe imperfections, right?
19:19But that's it still means that while it's an imperfect form of government, it is still the best form of
19:25government. Rajdeep, can I just ask you a counter question? I don't like to do that normally.
19:30What is a better system of government than that which we have, right? And let me tell you, if there
19:35are men who fail that constitutional system in our country, there are equally more men who do it in
19:41other countries. Actually, if you ask me today, we are a much better functioning democracy than both the UK and
19:48the US. You're saying that we are a better democracy, constitutional democracy than the US and the UK.
19:54It's a big claim you're making. You're claiming Indian democracy is more effective than the United
19:58Kingdom and the US. Right? Yes, yes. Because, because let me tell you something.
20:07There are two things that are happening overseas, right? One is there is tampering with the judiciary to
20:13a bigger scale than here, right? Actually, the system permits it because, because any party in
20:19power actually has the advantage of fixing the final court, right, with their own nominees,
20:27that is US Supreme Court, right? So that's, that's one aspect. The second aspect is, right, that we have
20:35a more robust, we have a more robust electoral system than anybody else.
20:39Yes, sir. You know, Mr. Jaitpalani, we may have a more robust electoral system, but I would contend we
20:45don't have enough checks and balances within that system. Whether it's the nature of our policing,
20:50whether it's the nature of our judiciary at different levels, which is accused, incidentally,
20:54of not being, of having got compromised, not independent enough, whether it is the fact that the
20:59executive has become more dictatorial and authoritarian, whether it's the legislature, which many believe
21:04is reduced to a notice board, whether it's the media, which is seen by many to have been captured.
21:09Mr. Jaitpalani, you tell me, where is the real pushback in our system? Where are the
21:13checks and balances that are there in United States or possibly even in the United Kingdom?
21:20What, what great checks and balances have you had in the United Kingdom? I mean,
21:26there you, in the United States, you've had a president who, ex-president, who has pardoned both
21:32himself and his entire family. That's never happened. That kind of self-interested nepotism
21:41has never taken place in this country. So the judiciary there has been a party to it. They've not,
21:48they've not, I, I, I, till today, I don't know whether you can sanction, whether the US judiciary
21:55can get go into the question of partnering, right? But it certainly hasn't done anything to stop this
22:01very, very blatant abuse, the most blatant abuse.
22:03So what you're saying, Mr. Jaitpalani, we have a first rate constitution. You believe that the dangers
22:09are exaggerated, but at the same time, you do accept that we need to see stronger institutions
22:14that are more robust. Am I broadly correct? Yes, substantially more robust. Let me, let me
22:22add an adjective and say that, yes, I go to that extent that we are still a far cry from being
22:30at least a pretty good democracy, right? We are, we are, we are, we are among the top few democracies
22:35in the world today, right? And I pride myself, I pride India. I take pride in the fact that I'm an
22:40Indian, right? I can criticize people sometimes, of course, you're right, that the, the, the,
22:45the police will come down at the, at the behest of some politician and crack down on you.
22:50But those are instances by and large, which country, which country do you have a leader,
22:54which get incessantly going on saying things like chocky that show there, vote Joey. I mean,
23:00you, you've not only, you've not only put unproven charges or unsubstantiated charges
23:05against a top leader of this country, but you fail to come with evidence against,
23:09against a systemic, what you allege is a systemic abuse.
23:12So, so let me ask you in conclusion, very quickly,
23:15do you really believe there's enough space in Indian democracy for true dissent?
23:22Yes, I think there's enough space for dissent, but dissenters will always feel,
23:26right, until they come to par, that the system is not perfect.
23:31My Jet Malani, for joining me on the show today, I appreciate you joining me. You seem to suggest
23:36that and you seem to believe, therefore, that we are still a strong and robust democracy,
23:44free and fair elections are an intrinsic part of it. Whether they are free and fair,
23:47I leave two viewers to debate. Thank you very much, my Jet Malani. Let's move on now to the next guest on the
23:53Constitution Day debate. And our next expert constitutional voice on this special constitutional
24:00day is Harish Salve, former Solicitor General of the country. Appreciate your joining us here, Mr. Salve.
24:08This debate that I've ignited today, the opposition saying the government saying this is a day to
24:15celebrate our constitutional democracy. Do you believe the Constitution has served India well over
24:21the last seven decades and a half? Or are there infirmities in the way the Constitution is actually being
24:27implemented by the executive in particular? Radheer, there are two questions which are,
24:35which shouldn't be conflated. The Constitution has served us well. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
24:42Have we served the Constitution well at all times? Questionable.
24:48Well, what do you mean by we? Because I used this quote earlier of Nani Palkhiwala, the great jurist who said
24:54it is not, we have a first-rate Constitution, but it is the people who have in a sense failed
25:02the Constitution or rather the elected representatives who failed the Constitution.
25:06Of course, when emergency was declared in 1975, it was not the failing of the Constitution. Every
25:13constitution has provisions to deal with emergencies. Now, if we declare a phony emergency,
25:20it's we who are failing the Constitution. It's not that the Constitution is failing us.
25:28The Constitution is meant to accommodate all kinds of thinking.
25:35You can have leftist leaning, rightist leaning. You can have different definitions of government.
25:44And it is for good reason that the framers of the Constitution didn't add controversial and
25:49ambiguous words like secular and socialist and all this in the preamble. And I've personally always
25:57been a trenchant critic of these amendments. And I don't know whether you read, if you read Mr.
26:03Palkhiwala's speech, he was a trenchant critic of the amendment to the preamble also. And nobody can
26:09doubt his commitment to constitutional values. Right. So have we served the Constitution? Well,
26:16I must say we are 75. India is 75. We've changed so many. In two recent lectures, I did a little
26:27research and found out we have changed 15 prime ministers using a ballot. We had 15 prime ministers,
26:33I think, in the last 75 years. We've changed governments. We've changed from all complexions of
26:39government. We had Congress-dominated majority governments. We had coalition governments. Now you
26:45have a DGB-dominated majority government. You've had majoritarian governments. You've had Rajiv Gandhi with,
26:53I think, he had possibly the largest. That's right. And the Constitution accommodates all of this.
27:05The fear, Mr. Salves, are we now conflating the fact that we have elections every five years,
27:12prime ministers across parties are elected with the criticism that slowly but surely we are becoming an
27:18electoral autocracy where fundamental rights of the citizens get undermined, where it's no longer a
27:26level playing field when it comes to Indian democracy. Are we an elected autocracy? Do you
27:32believe that we are veering towards that? Is there a democratic recession that you see?
27:36Sir, first of all, the constitution, no constitution in the world, unfortunately,
27:42which provides for elected government has a level playing field. Do all the people who contest
27:50elections and there's so much talent out there which never makes it to parliament because you don't
27:55have a level playing field. There are certain things inherent to an electoral democracy. Do you think every
28:02American has equal right to become president of America? In theory, yes. In practice, no. Do you think
28:09everybody in the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom is much smaller with a much larger number of MPs.
28:14Your cost outlay is much lesser. I have for decades been an advocate of state funding of elections. And
28:21when I say state funding of elections, you don't necessarily have to write checks. You can make common
28:26facilities available, which the election commission can disburse, et cetera, et cetera. That's a debate for
28:31another day. But we don't want to talk about that because everybody, when he is in government,
28:36doesn't want to create a level playing field, you realize the unevenness of the field only
28:41when you are on the wrong side of the field. Sir, but you know, the concept of elections is only
28:46one part of the constitution. It's about ensuring that the fundamental rights of citizens are protected.
28:52Concepts that Ambedkar put out of equality, liberty, fraternity. Do you believe those concepts are
28:57really being observed in letter and spirit by indeed the lawmakers or indeed the law of this country,
29:04the judges of this country? Or are there serious lacuna there?
29:10Well, in theory, the constitutional rights are all in place.
29:15And after the Koelo judgment, we have locked in the constitutional rights. They cannot even be
29:20amending. How are the constitutional rights to be protected? The one area and the one area where
29:25the judiciary has in one sense supremacy is enforcement of constitutional rights. That is why
29:31Ambedkar did something very unusual for the Indian constitution. A, he expressly conferred the power of
29:38judicial review of legislation. We didn't have to invent it like the Americans did in Marbury and
29:42passed. Our courts have a right to strike down legislation if it violates fundamental rights.
29:47That is a very important step. And two, the right to move the Supreme Court itself was made a fundamental
29:54right in Article 32. So by which the signal of the constitution was, when it comes to constitutionally
30:03defined fundamental rights, the judiciary is the last word. And I must say, especially post-Krishna
30:10and I, the development of our fundamental rights jurisprudence is a marvel. And the world respects
30:19for what our courts have developed our system. We've read in gender justice, we've read in due
30:24process, we've read in the right to privacy and so on and so forth. But if you find today that there is
30:30an overall feeling that the Supreme Court is failing to protect the constitution, we need to go back and
30:35see. And there is a lot which is troubling the judiciary today. So what is the biggest challenge?
30:40You know, in conclusion, what according to you is the biggest challenge in a way that will,
30:46for those who would like to see the letter and the spirit of the constitution actually translate into
30:53concrete action on the ground? See, first of all, I think our political system needs to be a little more
31:00responsible. If the last word on the constitutional rights has been given to the judiciary, you cannot
31:08say I as a politician will define what is my understanding of the fundamental right. And if
31:13the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, the system doesn't work. Today, we've reached a
31:18either you're with us or you're with them kind of an attitude in public life. Either it's my truth and
31:23your truth. If you agree with me, you're a great judiciary. If you don't agree with me,
31:27you're a subservient judiciary. Now, that's not the way for approaching, at least for senior people
31:35in public life, for approaching. Yes, you can criticize the judgment, saying, here are the
31:41intellectual flaws in this judgment. And we have a debate. Democracy is all about many voices.
31:48Democracy is all about debate. And the Supreme Court, least of all, should be about criticism.
31:54Least of all. Because the Supreme Court is the last word of the law. And they have to be criticized.
31:59Their judgments have to be criticized, if you find them wrong. Not on a broad base saying, oh, I'm so
32:06sorry, Supreme Court has decided against me. But go to the judgment and say, this is where they've gone.
32:10I say, for example, the Supreme Court judgment, which upheld some draconian powers of the enforcement
32:17directorate is a disaster. I say so. And I can give you very strong, it's a debate for another day.
32:24But I can give you strong intellectual reasons where the Supreme Court has gone wrong. Not because I
32:28don't like the face of the judge, but because I say this is where the Supreme Court has gone
32:32intellectually wrong. Bail cases where Supreme Court has denied bail. I've always said, where did this drift
32:39happen from Krishna Iyer's bail, not jail? Where have we gone into jail, not bail? So that's exactly where,
32:47you know, you hit the nail in the sense in that last answer. What you're calling for is at least some
32:52element of introspection amidst the celebration of Constitution Day. Am I correct?
32:57Of course. See, I celebrate my constitution because it calls for introspection every single day. Since you've
33:06started by quoting my guru, let me tell you what he always said. He used to always say democracy
33:12is a ceaseless endeavor. It's not a safe harbor. Democracy means debate all the time.
33:21Very, very, you know, very fascinatingly put there. And I think quoting Nani Palkhiwala is a nice way
33:29on this Constitution Day to remember one of our foremost jurists. And he, in a sense, sends out a message
33:36to all of us that we have to continue to be sentinels in a way to ensure that our Constitution is not
33:42abused very quickly. I will answer only one thing. Only one last thing. There's only one time when the Constitution
33:48was seriously under threat. And that was 1975. And the court catapulted. Who saved democracy?
33:57You and me and our previous generation saved democracy. Ultimately, even the political system
34:03knew this was unsustainable in India. Till that fire of democracy burns in your heart, burns in my heart,
34:10and burns in the heart of our fellow Indians, our Constitution is safe. Okay. Hari Salve, always a pleasure
34:16talking to you. Thank you so much for joining me here on the news today. Thank you.
34:23Interesting to get three different voices without the noise. That's what we try to do now on the news today.
34:30Okay, let me turn from a story which today is my Get Real India story. Stories that go beyond the noise of
34:38prime time. A routine practice session has turned fatal in Haryana's Rotak, where a 16-year-old national
34:45level basketball player was crushed to death after a ring pole collapsed on the court. This comes just
34:5248 hours after another teen boy died on the basketball court in Haryana's Badurgarh. This has raised
34:59serious questions over the Haryana government's commitment to safety, maintenance, and what happened
35:05to the unspent public funds. We talk about Kelo India, but this is Get Real India. Take a look.
35:23Death on the basketball court. 16-year-old Hardik Rathi was practicing routine moves and trying to hang from
35:31the ring when the pole broke, crushing him. The national level player was rushed to a hospital in
35:37Rotak, but he succumbed to injuries. The accident took place in Lakhan Majra village on Wednesday morning.
35:44Hardik had won medals in several national events. The basketball court where the incident took place
36:10was built on panchayat land 15 years ago. Congress MP Dipender Singh Huda had initiated the work by
36:17donating 20 lakh rupees. The Haryana government opened a sports nursery which produced 15 international
36:24level basketball players. In 2023, Dipender Huda sanctioned over 18 lakh rupees from his MP funds
36:32in two installments, but this money remains unspent. The district sports department and the district
36:38panchayat development department are responsible for the club's functioning. The state government has
36:43suspended a district level sports official.
36:46The state government has also worked on the local local football team's construction.
36:49The state government has also inspired the local football team's community. This is
36:52the state government's department's organization. The national level of cool-minded people
36:55were used at local level. There are no opportunities for the current government's
36:56department's department. Thus, we have given up the state of the local national
37:00club and have won the local community. And that's why we have to take a look.
37:02And that's why we have to take a look.
37:04A similar accident took place at Shaheed Brigade Hoshyar Singh Stadium in Bahadurgarh on Sunday.
37:3415-year-old Amman died after the pole collapsed on him.
37:39The two deaths on the basketball court within a week have stunned Rotak.
37:45The sports department has called a meeting of all district officials on Friday to discuss maintenance of sports centres.
37:54With Kamaljeet Sandhu and Surendar Singh, Bureau Report, India Today.
Be the first to comment