The OP Jindal Global University campus hosted a re-enactment of the famous case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala on Saturday morning..The event took place during the University’s international convention on judicial independence and the launch of the Nyayabhyasa Mandapam, described as the world’s largest moot court. It was formally inaugurated by Chancellor Naveen Jindal and Vice-Chancellor C Raj Kumar..13 Supreme Court judges headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant heard the arguments in the matter. The Bench included Justices PK Mishra, Aravind Kumar, Sanjay Karol, MM Sundresh, Joymalya Bagchi, Dipankar Datta, R Mahadevan, AG Masih and Rajesh Bindal..Four senior members of the Bar took up the roles of counsel. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the petitioners while Attorney General R Venkataramani and Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra presented the case for the respondents..CJI Kant opened the event with remarks on the constitutional ethos.“Where defects, discord and misinformation multiply, and digital harassment becomes disturbingly routine, integrity and honesty are no longer lofty ideals. They are instruments of survival and firmness born out of experience," he said.He stated that the Basic Structure doctrine is neither a product of judicial fancy or philosophical abstraction, but a result of constitutional archaeology within the four corners of the Constitution. Looking back at 1973, he said,“The Supreme Court chose the path of constitutional maturity and morality. It refused to bend the Constitution into the shape of convenience. In that single act, it demonstrated that democracy did not grow old prematurely.”.Singhvi began his submissions by noting, “The Constitution is given by the people and to themselves. But the power to decide upon amendments is given to a five-year Parliament, which is ultimately a creature of that Constitution. Therefore, the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution should not be construed so widely as to allow the alteration beyond recognition of the very document which is the manifestation of the people."He said further that a Constitution is not a suicide pact and that the formal procedures for amendment cannot and should not be utilised to effectively impair, damage or destroy its Basic Structure..Solicitor General Mehta, also for the petitioners, illustrated the risks of unlimited amendment power. “Suppose the legislature were to have the power of amending the Constitution, which includes the power to amend the Preamble also, and sovereignty is surrendered to an external sovereign, maybe the British Queen. What would happen?"He said that directive principles are purely aspirations and for achieving an aspiration, one cannot think of sacrificing fundamental rights. On the effect of the Ninth Schedule, he submitted, “The twenty-ninth amendment literally takes away judicial review, which is again linked to the protection conferred under Part Three of the Constitution of India.”.Appearing for the respondents, Attorney General Venkataramani said that constitutional interpretation must remain sensitive to democratic needs. He submitted that the cause and demands of society at any given point of time will always be the preservation both of the people’s choice and of the measures, means and methods to be undertaken by a democratically elected Assembly for the people.He argued that to introduce another limitation on the amending power like the Basic Structure, which is not found anywhere in the text of the Constitution, would shred this carefully crafted scheme and introduce confusion. “We have apprehensions that it will appear that the argument about Basic Structure is like clipping the wings of a bird from time to time and then calling the cage its freedom,” he said..Luthra supported the Attorney General and questioned whether the Court could override democratic will.“Can we sit in the court and determine the will of the people? The representatives of people are well aware of the grass root issues,” Luthra contended.The will of people is expressed through Parliament and it cannot be restricted from doing its job, he stated."We the people decided that we cannot restrict changes embracing freedom and that freedom comes with debate, discussions. Let us not constrain Parliament from doing its job,” he submitted..Justice BV Nagarathna highlighted the importance of faith in judiciary. “Faith in courts is the most needed thing for the impartial and independent functioning of the judiciary.” She added that independence in conduct, political insulation and impartial decision making are the hallmark of an independent judiciary. "Independence of judicial thought and conduct must not only be there but also perceived by the public.”.Justice PS Narasimha spoke about the challenges inherent to judicial power. “In every epoch, judiciary faces two temptations - to yield or to overreach,” he said. .[Read Live Thread].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
