Interpretation of Constitution

Should there be any difference of opinion between the Supreme Court of India and the Law Ministry? It is the Supreme Court that will prevail. Pakistan lives by a different philosophy. The legislatures legislates but it is the Judiciary that interprets that legislation and decides that it is in conformity with the letter and spirit of the Constitution presently in force. The Executive makes exrcutive decisions, both in policy matters and in day to day affairS but their action or inaction has to conform to the Constitution of the country concerned. Judiciary indeed is the final interpreter of law and arbiter of disputes. The Supreme Court of a country is the highest court and, therefore its interpretation of Law is final and must be obeyed by one and all. As a matter of fact what the Supreme Court lays down as the final interpretation of a Law or a Statutory Rule in turn becomes Law. The age-old maxim on Law is: HOWEVER HIGH ONE MAY EVER BE, THE LAW IS ALWAYS ABOVE HIM. Thus, the Law of the land is above one and all and it is Final. Even the Supreme Court abides by it. Naturally, no other institution dares change the situation or interpret the importance of Law in a different manner. The Constitution of India enacted, adopted and promulgated on 26 January 1950 by the People of India is above all laws. All laws passed by the Indian Parliament have to conform to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Even the Parliament cannot pass a law that contravenes the basic structure of the Constitution. Should there be a requirement to change the basic structure of the Constitution of India, a new Constituent Assembly will be elected, convened and asked to frame a new Constitution or just interpret a relevant article in relation to the new situation obtaining in the country at that moment. ARMY CHIEF Vs DEFENCE MINISTRY Of late, an interesting case arose where age of Chief of the Army Staff had to be fixed as per documents that had to be reconciled. Two important documents had two different entries. The High School certificate takes the final call in such matters. Apparently, there was a clash of ego too and that too at the highest echelon. When the Army Chief made Statutory complaints and sought correction of date of birth as per the High School certificate, the vested interests prevailed on the Raksha Mantri to dismiss it. The Chief made two complaints, one in July 2011 and the other in July 2011 but both met with the same tragic end under pressure of vested interests who wished to see a kin from Punjab as the next Army Chief. They lobbied hard and had the two Statutory complaints of General Vijay Kumar Singh dismissed without assigning any reasons. The dismissal was a case of high handedness, a brute show of authority unaccompanied by logic or law. A sheer product of jungle raj and not rule of law. General Vijay Kumar Singh went in appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Govt of India was represented by a phalanx of Senior Advocates led by the Attorney General of India. The Supreme Court two-judge bench saw through the game and admitted General Singh’s petition and chastised the Attorney General for being a part of the rejection process of the statutory complaint boththetimes and thus vitiating the process. Their Lordships wanted AG to seek fresh instructions from the Govt of India after the second dismissal is withdrawn. Thus, their Lordships gave an opening to the govt to correct its mistake and arrive at a legal settlement. The petition is posted for 10th Feb 12 for a hearing just in case no out of court settlement could be reached. Moral of the story is: Law is supreme and where ulterior motive comes in pay, the process is vitiated and must be set aside. The Ministry of Defence got a bad name for being unjust. Army Chief got bouquets for getting his Honour and TRUTHFUL STAND UPHELD. LOOKING AT PAKISTAN Pakistan has these Constitutional provisions but these exist just on paper. The Pakistan Army staged coups galore and Supreme Court put its stamp of approval and thereby weakened itself. There is just one exception to the Judiciary succumbing to barrel of a gun cocked at it by the Generals of the Pakistan Army. It was Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhury, Chief Justice of Pakistan Supreme Court who preferred to lock up courts of law rather than sign on dotted lines on orders dictated by the Pakistan Army Generals. The stand off continued for a long time until it was time to usher in a civil govt to replace army rule. Now the Second Stand Off between the Civil Govt of Pakistan and its Supreme Court is in the offing. The Pakistan Supreme Court had asked to write to the Swiss Govt to dig out illegal wealth and bank accounts of President Asif Ali Zardari. Prime Minister Yusaf Reza Gilani declined to do so as the President enjoyed immunity from criminal investigation and prosecution. The Supreme Court has opined that it is for the judges to look into the immunity aspect and the Prime Minister, as an Executive Head, should have written a letter to the Swiss government. The crux of the matter is that action should be taken against the corrupt politicians, irrespective of immunity granted to them. Democracies all over the world have supremacy of Judiciary in interpretation of law. Rule of Law is the hallmark of a democratic system of governance.