[list-milapchoraria-03] Consstitution empowers the Judiciary to taken over executive's functions, if Govt failed to perform its statutory duties.

In the following News item, this is claimed that Government submitted in its Review Petition that "The order completely eliminated the role and denuded the constitutional responsibility of the executive which itself is answerable to Parliament", but government forget to mention that both Parliament and the Supreme Court are accountable to Constitution and Founding Fathers of the Constitution make the Supreme Court as the Custodian of the Constitution and guardian of Citizen's rights of democracy. If any judgment made in past by the SC contrary to aforesaid constitutional doctrine, same is required to be declared void. in support of my this pleading I must refer statement made by renowned Freedom Fighter and Speaker of the 1^st Loksabha Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, on 9th December, 1948 during the discussions on Article 32, interalia says that the "Supreme Court according to me is the Supreme guardian of the citizen's rights in any democracy. I would even go further and say that it is the soul of democracy. The executive which comes into being for the time being is apt to abuse its powers, and therefore the Supreme Court must be there, strong and un-trammelled by the day to day passions which may bring a set of people into power and throw them out also in a very short time. In less than three or four years during which a parliament is in being, many governments may come and go, and if the fundamental rights of the individual are left to the tender mercies of the Government of the day, they cannot be called fundamental rights at all. On the other hand, the judges appointed to the Supreme Court can be depended upon to be the guardians of the rights and privileges of the citizens, the majority and the minority alike". 

 

Article 32 of the constitution empowered to ensure remedy, which even if possible in taking over the execitive function in extra-ordinary circumstances/situation/ or issue. With regard to issue of parallel economy controlled by black money, Government just not failed to take appropriate measures, rather its system and machinery engaged to protect big tax evaders, if they have political clouts/nexus. In ssuch case if SC under such eextra-ordinary situation takes functions of executive, it is within its powers given under Part III Article 32 of the Constitution. 

 

If any order contrary to aforesaid order dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the Supreme Court is passed, it means SC would not perform its Constutional duties.

 

Within next 2/3 days, I will submit detail fact in support of my aforesaid statement, system and machinery engaged to protect big tax evaders, if they have political clouts/nexus.        

Milap Choraria

Judiciary taking over executive's functions: Govt to SC

Dhananjay MahapatraDhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Jul 16, 2011, 01.10am IST
http://www.indiaeveryday.in/fullnews-judiciary-taking-over-executives-functions-govt-to-sc-1001-2832376.htm
 
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Friday vented its strong opposition to what it termed the judiciary taking over the executive's function and moved the Supreme Court seeking recall of the black money order to oversee a probe that includes alleged hawala operations of Hasan Ali Khan and Kashinath Tapuria.

"The order completely eliminated the role and denuded the constitutional responsibility of the executive which itself is answerable to Parliament," the UPA government said, reflecting its growing irritation about judiciary inserting itself in the black money probe and also its growing frustration over setbacks in cases like Salwa Judum and the 2G scam.

Although it has been chafing for a while now, this is the first time the government openly termed an SC order delivered on July 4 on black money as a clear instance of judicial overreach and sought stay of its operation.

The courts do not substitute their views and judgment in matters which squarely fall within the executive's domain, the government said and alleged that the black money order completely erased the executive's role.

"It is contrary to settled legal principle that the function of the court is to see that lawful authority is duly exercised by the executive, but not to take over itself the tasks entrusted to the executive," the Centre said.

Referring to SC's comments on the Union government's policy decision on Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty, the Centre said the judgment "impinges upon the well settled principle that courts do not interfere with the economic policy which is the domain of the executive and that it is not the function of the court to sit in judgment over the matters of economic policy, which must necessarily be left to the expert bodies."

Reflecting the deep resentment against the July 4 order of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar, it said: "The said order impinges upon the principle that in matters of utilities, tax and economic policy, legislation and regulation cases, the court exercises judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to the acts of the executive, since the executive has obligations and responsibility both constitutionally and statutorily."

The SC had set up a SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge accusing the government agencies of probing the black money, an issue of national importance, laggardly.

It said: "The discussion of economic theories and the wide ranging criticism of the state in paras 1 to 20 is uncalled for, unjustified and made without any discussion in court or material therefore."

It objected to the SC's criticism of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA) and said: "The order so far it purports to subject the treaty making powers of the sovereign countries to judicial review impinges upon the legal and constitutional principles that such treaties are not subject to judicial review of courts."