The fiasco of the proposal to reinstate Article 370


- Decisions reminiscent of the Ram Mandir judgment

- Occasional

- The Supreme Court has won the hearts of the people and increased confidence in India's judicial system

- Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud

One date was 9-11-2019 and the other is 11-12-2023. Both dates are associated with important judgments. Both times precautionary measures were taken for the safety of the country and both the verdicts won the self-respect of the country.

A total of 23 people filed a petition citing various reasons such as the removal of Article 370 by the central government is an inappropriate step. Known faces who filed the petition include Sitaram Yechury, Tehsin Poonawalla, etc. The petitioners fielded an army of eminent lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam and others. Kapil Sibal frequently gave updates on the case to the news media. After a long hearing, Supreme Court Chief Justice D. Y. A five-judge bench headed by Chandrachud unanimously held that the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir was a right and just step.

Similar excitement was seen during the judgment of Ram Mandir on 8-11-2019. At that time, Chandrachud was also on the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogai. He said that the temple was demolished and a mosque was built on it. Therefore, the demand of the Ram Mandir Committee to allow the temple to be built again on that land is justified.

There were also those who said that if Article 370 is removed, blood will be shed in the country, but the Modi government showed courage and removed the article. To everyone's surprise, there was not even a normal gravel storm.

Kapil Sibal, who called Article 370 illegal, said in an interview before the verdict that some wars are fought only to be lost. Kapil Sibal left the Congress party in 2022 after not getting a Rajya Sabha ticket and ran as an independent with the support of the Samajwadi Party. Kapil Sibal's father was a noted advocate. His two sons also practice in the Supreme Court.

It has become clear that the case against the removal of Article 370 was unnecessary. Some people fight such cases for the sake of publicity to attract public attention and create sympathy for a particular class.

We have a section challenging the decisions of the central government and the judgments of the judiciary. Such a class has the backing of some political parties. For example, some prominent people like Prashant Bhushan opened the court at midnight in 2015 to stay the execution of Yakub Memon, the culprit in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case that claimed 257 lives and moved to commute the sentence. The court rejected the new plea at 4.10 am on July 30 and kept the death sentence intact. A few hours later Yakub was hanged.

Such a judgment shows that anyone in India is allowed to raise objections and can resort to judicial courts. In both the Ram Mandir and Article 370 cases, the petitioners were given ample opportunity to present themselves.

There are frequent reports of a cold war going on between the central government and the Supreme Court judges. Central government keeps taking tough decisions. People who are upset with it can knock the doors of the court. When it comes to the sovereignty of the country, everyone follows some law and constitution.

There are many cases in India in which the government and the Supreme Court have been put to the test. Today again by upholding the Constitution, the Supreme Court has won the hearts of the people and increased confidence in the judicial system of India.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The specter of Bhopal gas scandal resurfaced, demand to take action in America too

The Endless War of the Jews.

The language is full of love, full of repulsion

Delhi talk: Priyanka's son Rehan will enter politics?

If the women's reservation bill is passed, but when will it be implemented is a big question

The problem of educational quality.

Talking about Delhi: The team for Sangh-BJP coordination will change

The brewing rift between Bhutan and China will aggravate the Doklam dispute

The return of Corona.