வாசகர்கள் கருத்துகள் ( 6 )
அப்போது ஏன் அரசியல் சாசனத்தில் இல்லாத நடைமுறை நீதிபதிகள் நியமனத்தில் ?. இப்போதைய நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்புகள் தரம்குறைந்தும் சர்ச்சைக்குரியாவையாகவும் உள்ளது கண்களுக்கு தெரியவில்லையா ?
நல்லா தான் சொன்னீங்க, ஆனால் அவர்களுக்கு உறைக்க மாட்டேன் என்கிறதே!
ஐயா வக்கீலே, அப்படியெனில் அரசியல் சாசனத் திருத்தங்கள் இவ்வளவு முறைகள் ஏன் எற்பட்டன?
சரிதான் அய்யா அரசியல் அமைப்பெல்லாம் ஒரு மதத்தினருக்கு மட்டும்தானா அவர்களுக்கு பொருந்தாதா. அவுங்க பெரும்பான்மை ஆகிவிட்டால் இதை மதிப்பார்களா ...
Constitution is supreme no doubt but the constitution is framed and passed by parliament and amendments that are brought are done by parliamentarians, CJI should note it.
Constitution was d by a group of intellectuals under the leadership of Dr. B. R Ambedkar since he was Law Minister at that time. There were many eminent personalities in that group all were equally knowledgeable compared to the leader. Now many claim only the leader of that functional group Dr. Ambedkar himself had drawn the laws. Above that the constituent assembly passed the draft by majority. After which only the "Constitution of Bharat/ India" came to effect. Furthermore it got amended or striked out many obsolete clauses to match with time. For example laws about Information Technology have been constituted in the recent past to which Dr. Ambedkar period intellectuals could have no reference. So the dynamic change in constitution is permanent. Article 370 abrogation is the recent development which would not have been envisaged at the time of creation. Reservation is another aspect which had been introduced as a temporary measure to upbringing of socially weaker section of people. Now it is a main permanent agenda for promoting vote bank politics. Such were the scenarios not envisaged. Politician were expected to relinquish their office when their function or conduct was in question atleast on morale ground. Now that morality is a scarce commodity in politics. That is the fallout to situations Ministers and Chief ministers holding office even while behind the bars. Such was interpretation or misinterpretation of law upheld by the Highest Courts of this country. So now we find flaw with the Parliament for not properly plugging the holes whilst enactment. Indra Gandhi or to that any other Prime minister were not even a eminent personalities in Law who could muster majority to amend or abrogate any law in the constitution. So what is constitution to be very great about? Judiciary is looking upon the constitution passed by parliament for dispensation of justice. So it is evidently clear of the Supremacy.