A huge political row erupted after BJP Lok Sabha MP Nishikant Dubey slammed the judiciary, accusing it of trying to invade the executive's powers and jurisdiction.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Hello and welcome. Good evening. You're watching India Today. I'm Akshita Nandakopal.
00:03We'll be getting you all the top stories that we're tracking this Sunday evening.
00:06Our focus particularly on the huge debate that's been triggered by BJP MP Nishikand Dubey's
00:12rather scathing comments at the Supreme Court and at the judiciary.
00:17That's our top focus this evening. Here are the headlines first.
00:20BJP MP Nishikand Dubey accuses Supreme Court of overstepping its limits and boundaries.
00:30Opposition slams Dubey's remarks as defamatory and dangerous.
00:34BJP distances itself from Dubey's remarks, calls it his personal stand.
00:44Flash floods triggered by intense overnight rainfall wreak havoc in Dharmkundu village
00:49near Chenabh river in Jammu and Kashmir's Ramban district.
00:52Three dead, few missing. Center takes note and assures all possible assistance.
01:03NCW chief submits report to Center after speaking to victims in Murshidabad.
01:06Says women and children attacked by rioters.
01:09Mamata Penn's letter appealing for peace accuses BJP and RSS of provocation.
01:13Janayu Rao snowballs in Karnataka.
01:21Student in Sagra in Karnataka asked to cut off his Janayu in exam hall
01:25and throw it in a dustbin.
01:27Fourth incident reported in the last three days in Karnataka.
01:29Anurag Kashyap's controversial remark on Brahmin Sparks' nationwide outrage FIR against Kashyap in Mumbai.
01:42Writer Manoj Muntashir slams filmmaker for his remarks.
01:45There have been two judgments last week from the Supreme Court that opened up a Pandora's box,
01:58a massive debate.
01:59One was when they set a timeline for the governors and the president to decide on bills.
02:04And the second was on the VUKF reform.
02:07So the judiciary versus parliament debate is heating up.
02:10You had first Vice President Dhankar opining on it and now BJP MP Nishikant Dube.
02:15And Nishikant Dube's outburst has lit a political fuse yet again.
02:20His fiery attack on the Supreme Court, on the CGI,
02:23so much so that he said the top court is also inciting religious divide,
02:28has drawn sharp backlash.
02:29On one hand, you've got the BJP distensing itself completely from its MP's remarks,
02:34saying it's Dube's remarks, not what the party believes.
02:38And then you've got the Congress and the opposition questioning
02:41why Nishikant Dube made this comment, deeming it contempt of court.
02:45We will talk about what Nishikant Dube said
02:47and also the larger debate here about the judiciary.
02:51But first, a report on all the reactions coming in.
03:02BJP MP Nishikant Dube's scathing attack on the top court
03:05In a piercing strike, the BJP MP lashed out to the Chief Justice of India
03:11and the Supreme Court,
03:13holding them responsible for anarchy and religious war in the country.
03:17The blistering attack on the judiciary comes after the Supreme Court set a timeline
03:41for presidential nod to bills and opted for status quo on the VAC floor.
03:48The BJP, however, disapproved of the attack on the Supreme Court.
03:52BJP Chief, J.P. Nada, washed his hands off MP Dube's remark,
03:57calling it his own opinion.
03:59The little controversy has already been given a full stop
04:02by the national president of BJP, Honorable Mr. J.P. Nada Ji.
04:10The dignity and decorum of the Supreme Court is to be maintained at any cost.
04:15The opposition called Nishikant Dube's attack
04:17a bid to lower the authority of the top court
04:19and sought contempt of court charge.
04:21I think this cannot be taken as a lightly.
04:51One of the serious allegations has been made by a member of parliament
04:55direct attack on judiciary.
04:58Just days ago, the top court was in the crosshairs of Vice President Jagdeb Dhankar
05:02who slammed the Supreme Court overreach and veto power over government.
05:07The VP had also questioned the absence of an FIR in the Judge Cashall case.
05:12Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces.
05:17It's available to judiciary 24 to 7.
05:23It is now over a month.
05:27Even if it is a can of wounds,
05:30it's time to blow up the can.
05:33While the executive versus judiciary tussle isn't new,
05:38the growing acrimony points to a never-before escalation.
05:42Can Indian democracy afford this growing divide between its key pillars?
05:46With Ashutosh Mishra in Delhi, Bureau Report, India Today.
05:49This makes for a very interesting debate politically, of course, and otherwise also
05:56because there's been, of course, a huge, huge conversation and commentary really
06:02about the judiciary and the court's verdicts on VACF
06:05and also previously on governors and presidents and ascent to bills.
06:09I'd like to introduce our panel this evening.
06:11Joining us here is Raghav Avasti, political analyst and advocate.
06:15We've got Jay Anand Dehadrai, lawyer in the Supreme Court,
06:18Mahima Singh, spokesperson of the Congress and advocate in the Supreme Court.
06:22Good evening.
06:22Thank you all very much for taking your time out and joining us here this Sunday evening.
06:26Mr. Dehadrai, I'd like to begin with you.
06:28What do you make, first of all, of Mr. Dubey's remarks on the judiciary,
06:32where he says even that the courts are creating a religious divide?
06:36Hi, good evening.
06:37You know, I think Mr. Dubey speaks from some degree of, you know, pain and frustration.
06:43And a lot of us, we, in fact, share that pain and frustration that he has expressed.
06:48And as a practicing lawyer in the Supreme Court, I can tell you this,
06:51that there have been historically multiple instances when judicial overreach has happened.
06:57And whenever judicial overreach happens, there is a sense that an organ of the government
07:01is exceeding its legitimate authority and sort of entering into domains that it ought not to enter.
07:07And now if you look at the most recent sort of instances of, you know, this sort of judicial overreach,
07:12there is a question that comes to one's mind.
07:15That, for instance, when violence was brewing in Manipur,
07:19you had the Supreme Court take suho-moto-cognizance of those, you know, of those disturbances.
07:23But when you had a similar situation in Murshidabad,
07:27then, you know, the Supreme Court was completely silent about it.
07:31So there is this sense of growing unease and frustration about
07:34why in certain instances there is judicial activism,
07:38but in certain other instances where Parliament exercises its lawful authority to make a law,
07:44you have the Supreme Court coming in and sort of saying that, you know,
07:48that constitutional right that is accorded to the legislature to make law.
07:53So these are all very serious issues.
07:55And I'd like to say one more thing.
07:58You know, we are making, we're making, this is,
08:00there is this hullabaloo that we're making now about Mr. Dubey's statement,
08:03and I'll tell you why.
08:04And I'll also tell you why it is welcome in a democracy.
08:08Our democratic system is based upon the foundation of checks and balances.
08:14You don't want constant bonhomie between the organs.
08:17So if a four-term parliamentarian is feeling something wrong about how one organ of government
08:25is sort of entering or, you know,
08:28illegitimately entering into the domain and field of another organ of government,
08:32which is the legislature that he belongs to,
08:35then he has every right fundamentally,
08:37I mean, he has a fundamental right to express his opinion.
08:41And lastly, I had a chance to hear his remarks.
08:45You know, the Supreme Court has very broad shoulders.
08:48You know, your viewers must understand this.
08:51And in his statement, which I heard very carefully,
08:54he doesn't impute any motives to the Honorable Chief Justice or to any other judge.
08:59He's simply saying that you have these instances now of religious strife,
09:05perhaps because the court intervenes selectively in certain incidents
09:09and does not intervene in other incidents.
09:11So you don't believe his comments to be a bit harsh, a bit polarizing?
09:15Well, you know, you may not like the manner in which he has said it,
09:18but that's the truth.
09:20And certainly it's not contempt of court.
09:22I mean, all the worthies out there that I have been listening to today,
09:26self-appointed experts of constitutional law,
09:29they are saying this is contempt of court.
09:31There is no contempt here.
09:33He's not imputed any improper motive to any judge.
09:35He's not said that some judge has done this out of some,
09:38you know, illegal motive or reason.
09:40He's simply saying that this outcome that we're seeing in the country today,
09:45where we have religious strife in different areas,
09:47perhaps is because there is selective action by the top court in certain incidents
09:52and there is no action in certain other incidents.
09:55Now, one section may argue that, you know,
09:58the Supreme Court of India is a polyvocal court.
10:01One court may have a different view.
10:03Another courtroom may have a different view.
10:05These are fine.
10:05These are all academic discussions.
10:07We can go sort of discussing, you know, till the cows come home.
10:09The point is that a member of parliament has expressed his view
10:13about what he believes to be wrong in terms of the functioning of the organs of the government.
10:18And our system runs on checks and balances.
10:21Yes, sometimes, you know, one organ of government steps in to counter the other.
10:26This is healthy.
10:27This is, you know, this is to be welcome.
10:30Point taken, Mr. Dehadra.
10:31You're saying there should be room for criticism and there's nothing wrong with it.
10:34Mr. Raghavavasti, your opening comments on this.
10:37Look, when you talk about the two orders that came in from the Supreme Court on VUF,
10:40or for that matter, you know, on the governors and presidents
10:43and the amount of time for the bill, Article 142, essentially,
10:47the counter that always comes up to that is basic structure doctrine,
10:51that the Supreme Court can intervene, that the judiciary can intervene.
10:55I think it's a bit of a misinterpretation of the basic structure doctrine.
10:59Let me just explain it for two minutes.
11:01Now, initially, if you just look at the bare text of the Constitution in Article 368,
11:06power to parliament to amend the Constitution is absolute.
11:12So, what happens in 1973 is that the Supreme Court comes up with something known as
11:17the basic structure doctrine, which says that there are certain features of the Constitution
11:22that cannot be amended.
11:24And whether or not a particular amendment is a violation of the basic structure
11:30is something that has to be judged by the Supreme Court.
11:33So, I think this is what the basic structure doctrine is.
11:36Even under the original Constitution, under Articles 32 and Article 226,
11:42there is power that is vested in constitutional courts
11:45to test the validity of statutes on the angle of the fundamental rights
11:50that are granted to the people under Part 3 of the Constitution.
11:53So, the basic structure doctrine doesn't even come into the picture here.
11:58I will just add one more point.
11:59Now, as far as we can have this argument is about the extent to which such scrutiny is
12:06to be permitted.
12:07Because I very firmly believe that the court should exercise its power only in cases where
12:14the statute in question is blatantly discriminated.
12:17So, for example, if a law were to be made tomorrow by any government or any parliament
12:21which says that, okay, for a particular job, women cannot apply.
12:24So, that is blatantly violative of the Equality Clause.
12:27So, such things have to be struck down.
12:30Having said that, if there is a VAC fact that has gone to the JPC
12:34and proper parliamentary procedures have been followed,
12:38then just because there is, as Jayad Yadrai Ji rightly pointed out,
12:42it is a polyvocal court.
12:44So, just because there is one bench that might have a political opinion
12:48about what this law should be like or what this law should not be like,
12:52then it should not interfere in such cases.
12:54No, so you think it was a politically colored judgment?
12:57Last point, last point, last point, last point.
13:00The basic structure doctrine came into existence.
13:04It came into existence because there was apprehension in the minds of the people of India
13:09as well as the worthies who were sitting in the Supreme Court at that point
13:13that the Indira Gandhi government might amend the constitution, abolish the Supreme Court,
13:19abolish democracy makers of the President or Prime Minister for life.
13:23And these were statements that were being made by Congress worthies at that time,
13:27including T.K. Barua and Bansilal.
13:30So, this is the kind of stuff that was happening in the country.
13:33And the Indira Gandhi government of the day also opposed the formulation or promulgation
13:40of this doctrine by the Supreme Court.
13:41No, so let me bring in Mahima Singh.
13:43Now today, the Congress is very committed, taking some other position.
13:46No, no.
13:46Mr. Avastee, let's give Mahima Singh a chance to respond.
13:50Spokesperson of the Congress, importantly also, advocate of the Supreme Court.
13:54So, ma'am, I'm very curious to know what you have to say about this entire issue.
13:58You've heard already from the other panelists who believe that, look,
14:01what Mr. Dube said, there is truth to it.
14:04There is a basis on which he's made this comment.
14:09Jay Hind, Akanksha, before I proceed to make my remarks on the issue,
14:14I must remark that your panel today is rather skewed.
14:19Skewed how, ma'am?
14:20Just a moment, just a moment.
14:22No, no, please explain, ma'am.
14:23This is Akshita, but please explain.
14:25How is it skewed?
14:26Yes, it is skewed because since yesterday, I've been seeing BJP panelists are missing,
14:31BJP spokespersons are missing from the debates.
14:34Now, you've got two Supreme Court advocates arguing the matter amongst themselves,
14:38analysing, interpreting the matter.
14:40Ma'am, I thought you'd be happy that we don't have someone for the BJP.
14:43Yes, I agree that the BJP is not joining us.
14:46But I don't see why you'd have an objection over it.
14:48It means you'll get a chance to speak.
14:50Akanksha, why get so defensive?
14:52Akanksha, ma'am, yes.
14:52Allow me to make my remark.
14:55And I hope I'm free to have my view as Mr. Dube has had.
15:00Of course, please.
15:00No, so you see, you've got advocates on your panel.
15:05If you were calling me in capacity of merely an advocate, it would have been a different
15:09story.
15:09But I am here as a Congress spokesperson and I put off my advocate hat while I speak as a
15:15Congress spokesperson on the matter today.
15:17Because when he says,
15:19And then he goes on to say,
15:23When you study these words, if at all you call it to be anything, it is pure contempt.
15:35A BJP, a government that on a drop of a hat goes on to challenge the opposition to say,
15:43Go to the Supreme Court, why don't you move the courts?
15:46Well, when we go out to protest against BJP's excesses, you know, they go on to say,
15:52Why are you protesting on the streets?
15:53Why don't you go to the courts?
15:55Now, here we see an MP of the same party coming ahead and saying that the courts are corrupt.
16:01Just two days ago, we heard the Honorable Vice President say that the courts are, you know,
16:06Article 142 is rather a nuclear missile material.
16:11I mean, we're not watching their words.
16:13Now, let me just say, Akanksha, you see, why I say is the BJP.
16:18I hope, you know, I wish the BJP spokesperson was here because now, unfortunately, you know,
16:24someone from you amongst you will have to cover up for the BJP when I go on to say this.
16:29When Article 370 abrogation judgment came out, when Rahm Mandir judgment came out,
16:34this was the very BJP, you know, that was hailing the Supreme Court and at many other such instances.
16:40But today, when the Supreme Court goes on to act on the VUKF Act,
16:44goes on to act on the excesses of the governors, this very BJP cries out foul
16:49because, you know, they are being checked and, you know, the doctrine of checks
16:54has already been mentioned here.
16:58Now, see, I said BJP will be covered up and so we are going to see.
17:02But let me just complete that, you see, doctrine of checks and balances,
17:06doctrine of separation of powers.
17:08These are the doctrines that give the Constitution its power that makes our democracy as such.
17:14You see, it is the parliament that can impeach the president of India.
17:20So, what is wrong when the Supreme Court goes on to say that the presidents and the governors cannot just sit on the bills,
17:26they must legislate.
17:27I was hearing Mr. Abasthi was illustrating.
17:30Okay, I'm going to.
17:31Okay, if I'm not saying, I'll give it to you a chance.
17:33Okay, go ahead.
17:34Ten seconds, please.
17:35Ten seconds, please.
17:36Yeah, yeah.
17:37So, you see, I was hearing, you know, his beautiful illustration.
17:40Let's say there's a law on women tomorrow.
17:42Now, let's say there's a law on women tomorrow that the houses have passed,
17:46but it goes on to the governor or the president and they just sit on it.
17:50It doesn't benefit the very people for whom the legislature brought it.
17:54Then what good is that law?
17:55So, where is it wrong if the Honorable Supreme Court, you know, goes on to rule against it?
18:00But Mr. Dubey's remark actually tell us that the Home Ministry has failed,
18:04that the Prime Minister has failed,
18:06and that there are civil wars happening in the country at the moment.
18:10They must at the very outset.
18:12Okay, okay.
18:13All right.
18:13Mahima Singh, stay with me.
18:15Mr. Dehadra, you had your hand up.
18:17I'm going to give you a chance and then Mr. Abasthi, I'll come to you.
18:19You know, I have great respect for your panelists.
18:22I mean, for the lady who spoke before me,
18:24but for her to now start imputing motives to us,
18:26and we are merely appearing here as lawyers on this show,
18:29I think that's a bit unfair,
18:31and I would advise her and request her to refrain from doing that going forward.
18:35But having said that, we're only analyzing the constitutional position,
18:39you know, that exists.
18:41And insofar as, you know, her mentioning, for instance,
18:43the governor's powers and, you know, the pocket veto available to the president,
18:48the criticism there for the Supreme Court is absolutely valid.
18:51If you look at articles 200 and 201 and also article 143,
18:57the position is crystal clear.
19:00The Supreme Court has read additional meaning into it,
19:02has put in timelines where none exist,
19:04has put in conditions where there are no conditions.
19:06Under article 143, the entire interpretation is incorrect
19:09because that is only advisory jurisdiction.
19:12Now it has become a sort of compulsory course of action
19:14that has to be taken by the president
19:16when a bill is sent by the governor for reconsideration.
19:18So, ma'am, please go back and read your constitution
19:21before you start making personal attacks at individuals.
19:24Please stop doing that.
19:25The Congress Party should get its act together.
19:27That is one aspect of it.
19:28Second, this constant attack on Mr. Dubey,
19:32look, I'm sure he can defend himself perfectly well.
19:35But what he's saying about the Supreme Court
19:37is an issue that should concern all of us,
19:39including Madam Mahima Singh Ji,
19:41because she's also, after all, a lawyer.
19:44She's a patriot.
19:45I'm not, I don't take that away from her.
19:47She's a nationalist.
19:48She's a patriot.
19:49But that means we have to abide by the constitution.
19:52The judges are not going to sit, ma'am,
19:54and amend the constitution.
19:55That power is granted under article 368
19:57only with the parliament of India.
20:00So now when the VAK, for example,
20:01the VAK fact, as Mr. Ravasti very beautifully pointed out,
20:04it's gone through JPC, two houses of parliament.
20:07It's been put to a vote.
20:09This is the democratic will of the country
20:11that they want this law to be created.
20:13Now, if there is something blatantly violative in that law,
20:17the Supreme Court in its jurisdiction under article 32
20:20will analyze that and will strike it down
20:22if there is something unconstitutional.
20:24Why the hurry to stay aspects of it
20:26or stay operation of it,
20:28that, according to me, is not fair.
20:30And this is where that frustration, ma'am,
20:32is coming from.
20:33Not merely, you know, parliamentarians
20:35belonging to one, you know, political party
20:37or the other,
20:38but right-minded citizens as well.
20:40And I don't take that away from,
20:42you know, Ms. Mahima Singh ji.
20:44I mean, she's with the Congress, fine.
20:46I mean, I have no political affiliations at all,
20:48so it makes no difference to me.
20:49But I'm speaking as a person,
20:50as an Indian citizen who believes in the Constitution,
20:53is a nationalist.
20:54And yes, I do not want the tyranny of the unelected.
20:57I have great respect for our judges.
20:59We have some of the finest judges in the world.
21:01Our judiciary is first class.
21:03But sometimes, once in a while,
21:05you have to also remind the Supreme Court
21:08that it has to function within its own domain.
21:11It cannot enter the legislative domain.
21:14That is very dangerous.
21:15And Madam Mahima Singh ji
21:16should be very familiar with this.
21:18She comes from the party of Mrs. Indira Gandhi,
21:21who actually suspended the Constitution of India,
21:25including fundamental rights.
21:26So they are the last persons on earth,
21:28let alone India,
21:29to be lecturing other people
21:31about calling out the Supreme Court
21:33when something incorrect or unconstitutional is happening.
21:35Okay, before I bring in Mahima Singh,
21:38I want to bring in Mr. Avasti as well.
21:40Mr. Avasti, one point that Mahima Singh did make
21:42was the fact that, you know,
21:44you had previously the Supreme Court being hailed
21:46when it came to orders that suited
21:48the central government's narrative.
21:50So is this criticism of the judiciary
21:53politically motivated?
21:55I think as Mr. Deidra,
21:56I rightly pointed out,
21:58the Supreme Court is a polyvocal court
22:00and it speaks in different tongues
22:01depending upon which bench there is.
22:02And it has always been the case.
22:04Because right from the beginning,
22:06if you see that there were certain judges
22:07like Justice Subbarra,
22:09for example, in the 1950s,
22:10who was pro-private property
22:12and there were others who were not.
22:13But I will just make two short points.
22:16One, of course,
22:17is on the power
22:18or the extent of the power
22:20of judicial review
22:21over a statute
22:21that has been passed
22:23as an expression of the will of the people,
22:25as Mr. Deidra rightly pointed out.
22:27Now, if we go strictly
22:29by the Westminster system,
22:31we look at the British parliamentary system,
22:33which is the source
22:35from which our democracy
22:36to a large extent
22:37is still derived from.
22:39No constitutional court
22:40actually has the power
22:41to sit in judgment
22:43over the constitutional validity
22:45of what has been done
22:45by the parliament.
22:47That is one thing.
22:48So if in any case,
22:51if this power is there
22:52under the Indian constitution,
22:54which I think comes
22:55from the American constitution,
22:56you go back to judgments
22:58like Marbury versus Madison.
23:00This power of judicial review
23:02has to be exercised sparingly
23:03because it's not executive action.
23:06Executive action, of course,
23:07can be struck down
23:08if it is violative
23:09or it can be struck down
23:11under a variety of circumstances.
23:13But if it is a statute
23:14that has been passed by parliament,
23:17then it cannot be compared,
23:19let us say,
23:19to something that has been done
23:21by an under-secretary
23:22secretary or even
23:23the cabinet secretary
23:24of the government of India
23:25or even an executive government
23:26order for that matter.
23:28Okay.
23:28Because the will of the people
23:30in any democracy
23:31is sovereign.
23:32And I will add
23:32one more point here.
23:34Today, the Congress party
23:35is saying
23:36that the Supreme Court,
23:37if it wishes
23:38or so desires,
23:40can insert words
23:42into the constitution.
23:43It is saying
23:44that there should be
23:44judicial activism,
23:46judicial interpretation,
23:47judicial rewriting
23:48of the constitution.
23:49Okay.
23:49But I would like to remind
23:50my friend
23:51that when ATM Jabalpur
23:53versus Shivkan Shukla
23:55was being argued,
23:57then the attorney general,
23:58I think his name
23:59was Sri Niren Day,
24:00he had said
24:01that if the constitution
24:02is suspended today,
24:03then it should be interpreted
24:04in such a manner
24:05that even if a policeman
24:07shoots somebody,
24:09that is to be allowed
24:10under the emergency
24:11because even your right
24:12under article 21
24:13is suspended.
24:14So this is a party
24:16that wants to interpret
24:18the constitution literally
24:19when it suits it.
24:21And it wants to interpret
24:23the constitution
24:23in an activist fashion
24:25depending upon
24:26when it suits it politically,
24:27which is what
24:28it is doing today.
24:29Okay, let me give a chance
24:30to Mahima Singh.
24:31We all of us
24:32have read constitutional history
24:33including,
24:34I think Mr. Deidra
24:35is a much better student
24:36of constitutional history
24:37than I am
24:38and so is Ms. Mahima Singh.
24:39But the people of India
24:40need to be reminded.
24:42The people of India
24:43need to be reminded
24:44of the hypocrisy
24:45of this party.
24:46I am really sorry
24:46to say that.
24:47Mahima Singh,
24:47I am going to give
24:48Mahima Singh a chance
24:49to respond now.
24:50Mahima Singh,
24:50go ahead.
24:53Akshita,
24:54I am sorry
24:55I mispronounced
24:56your name earlier.
24:56No problem, go ahead.
24:58Yeah, so you see
24:59as condemnable
25:00as the BJP's absence
25:02from your show is today,
25:03I would say
25:04the vindication
25:05of Duwe's remarks
25:07by two fellow advocates
25:08of the Supreme Court
25:09on your show
25:10are equally condemnable
25:11if not more.
25:12Now let me just
25:13go ahead and say
25:14that you know
25:14the gentleman
25:15you know
25:16who spoke before me
25:17Mr. Dehad Rai
25:18I assume
25:18you know
25:19was speaking about
25:20that it is
25:21democratic will
25:22that has taken place.
25:24Now we kept
25:24questioning the ways
25:25in which JPC
25:26was conducted.
25:28The very BJP
25:29that is crying foul
25:30today
25:30kept on saying
25:31well
25:32we are passing a law
25:33we are in majority
25:34you go to the
25:35you move the judiciary
25:36tomorrow.
25:37That's what we did.
25:38Now today
25:38BJP and its supporters
25:40when the BJP
25:41is absent
25:41are crying foul.
25:42Now you see
25:44going ahead
25:44Akshita
25:45you know
25:46many a time
25:47emergency has been
25:48mentioned on your show
25:49today.
25:50Let me just say
25:51with utmost responsibility
25:52that the constitutional
25:53violations
25:54this country has seen
25:55in the past 11 years
25:57whether it was
25:58the ordinance
25:59you know
26:00that brought
26:01farm laws
26:02later to be
26:03you know
26:03taken back
26:04by the
26:04constitutional
26:05violation
26:06you can oppose
26:08but constitutional
26:09violation
26:09how?
26:10whether it was
26:11the electoral
26:12bonds
26:12whether it was
26:13the GST
26:14whether it was
26:14the you know
26:15demonetization
26:16whether it was
26:17the lockdown
26:18and many
26:18you know
26:19how are any of
26:21these constitutional
26:21violations?
26:22I will let you
26:23finish ma'am
26:23but please
26:24you have to
26:24also answer
26:25what is
26:25constitutionally
26:26violating
26:27and what
26:27are you saying?
26:28Akshita
26:29as it is
26:30you have a
26:30skewed panel
26:31you have got
26:32one congress
26:32spokesperson
26:33representing
26:33the political
26:34views
26:34I have only
26:35a congress
26:36spokesperson
26:36you are going
26:37on intervening
26:38me
26:38how it is
26:39going to
26:39happen
26:40just allow
26:40me to
26:41finish my
26:41remarks
26:41and then
26:42you can
26:42ask me
26:43your
26:43counter
26:43questions
26:43as it is
26:44I am
26:44hearing
26:45you
26:45and the
26:45two
26:46gentlemen
26:46and then
26:46I am
26:47patiently
26:47waiting
26:48for my
26:48turn
26:48so you
26:49see
26:50these
26:50unprecedented
26:51constitutional
26:52violations
26:52we have
26:53seen
26:53over the
26:54past 11
26:54years
26:55are unprecedented
26:55the
26:56honourable
26:56supreme
26:56court
26:57of India
26:57told us
26:58and the
26:58world
26:59that
26:59electoral
27:00bonds
27:00unconstitutional
27:01were wrongfully
27:02imposed on
27:03this country
27:04and you know
27:05in the manner
27:06in which
27:06the electoral
27:08procedure
27:09the whole
27:09electoral
27:10machinery
27:10has been
27:11misappropriated
27:12only to be
27:13seen in the
27:13years to come
27:14you know
27:15now the
27:16election
27:16commission
27:16has begun
27:17to acknowledge
27:18so what
27:18Mr.
27:18Nishikant Dubey
27:19is doing
27:20today
27:20at behest
27:22of the
27:22prime minister
27:23to deviate
27:24the country's
27:25attention
27:25from something
27:26more significant
27:27and critical
27:28and the
27:28gentlemen
27:29are aiding
27:30the cause
27:30very much
27:31okay ma'am
27:31just quickly
27:32a follow
27:32up to
27:32you
27:33what is
27:33constitutionally
27:34a violator
27:35of the
27:35list
27:35that you
27:35gave me
27:36very good
27:39question
27:40what are
27:42the
27:42constitutional
27:42violations
27:43that you're
27:44talking about
27:44when you say
27:45lockdown
27:46when you talk
27:46about the
27:47farm laws
27:47oh yes
27:47let me just
27:49tell you
27:49you see
27:50the lockdown
27:51was wrongfully
27:51imposed upon
27:52this country
27:53without consulting
27:54with the
27:54opposition
27:54with the
27:55stakeholders
27:56anyway
27:57the ordinances
27:58to bring
27:58farm laws
27:59were brought
27:59from the
28:00back door
28:00when there
28:01was no
28:01emergency
28:02the farmers
28:04sat on
28:05allow me
28:06to complete
28:07if you want
28:10an answer
28:11to the
28:11no ma'am
28:11you're objecting
28:12you're not
28:12giving me
28:13the constitutional
28:13violations
28:14but I've
28:14run out of
28:15time and I
28:15must take
28:16closing comments
28:16I will raise
28:17an issue
28:18that Mahima
28:18Singh
28:19mentioned
28:20okay
28:22Mahima Singh
28:23I'm going to
28:24take your
28:24question forward
28:25Mr. Dehadra
28:25on the issue
28:26of contempt
28:27of court
28:27you know
28:28when a comment
28:29ma'am just
28:29hold on please
28:30Akshita do you
28:31agree
28:31electoral bonds
28:32were unconstitutional
28:33okay
28:33ma'am I've
28:35given you your
28:35fair say
28:36let me bring in
28:36Mr. Dehadra
28:37now
28:37on the issue
28:38that Mahima
28:39Singh mentioned
28:39of contempt
28:40of court
28:41Mr. Dehadra
28:41you know
28:42these kind
28:43of comments
28:43from lawmakers
28:44what kind
28:44of a precedent
28:45does it
28:45actually set
28:46if you don't
28:47have legal
28:47or political
28:48consequences
28:49then where
28:49do you draw
28:50the line
28:50on criticism
28:51of the judiciary
28:51or do you
28:52think everything
28:52is fair play
28:53I think
28:54Akshita
28:54two points
28:55one you asked
28:56a very good
28:57question to the
28:57lady before me
28:58it was an
28:58excellent question
28:59you asked
28:59because I
28:59couldn't see
29:00any constitutional
29:00violations there
29:01either
29:02but second
29:02to your point
29:03on contempt
29:04you know
29:04there is an
29:05old saying
29:05by I think
29:06it was Justice
29:06Krishnaya who
29:07said this
29:08that justice
29:09is not a
29:09cloistered virtue
29:10it has to
29:11it has to be
29:11exposed once
29:12in a while
29:13to even
29:13outspoken
29:14criticism
29:14and that
29:15is what
29:16I think
29:16Mr. Dubey
29:17should be
29:18thanked for
29:19yes
29:19one may
29:20disagree
29:20with the
29:21manner
29:21in which
29:21he has
29:22put it
29:22sure
29:22that's
29:23a manner
29:23of personal
29:23style
29:24but at least
29:25he's raised
29:25a very
29:26important
29:26issue
29:27judicial
29:27overreach
29:28is a
29:29problem
29:29and it
29:29isn't a
29:30partisan
29:31issue
29:31it doesn't
29:32become an
29:32issue
29:33when it
29:33is merely
29:33the
29:34Congress
29:34in power
29:34or if
29:35it is
29:35the BJP
29:36in power
29:36and in
29:37whatever
29:37combination
29:38it is a
29:39problem
29:39whenever it
29:40occurs
29:40judicial
29:41overreach
29:41is not
29:42ideal
29:42it means
29:43that you
29:44know
29:44the
29:45constitution
29:45is being
29:46subverted
29:46in a
29:47manner
29:48so I
29:48have
29:48nothing
29:49absolutely
29:49nothing
29:50personal
29:51against
29:51Ms.
29:52Mahima Singh
29:53is a
29:53very respected
29:54advocate
29:54I have
29:54great personal
29:55respect for
29:56her and
29:57she's made
29:57her point
29:57very clearly
29:58I disagree
29:58with her
29:59and I
29:59think the
30:00point right
30:00now is
30:01that we
30:01should not
30:01I mean
30:02this is
30:02not her
30:02time to
30:03make
30:03political
30:04you know
30:04to try
30:05and score
30:05political
30:05brownie
30:06points
30:06the issue
30:07is of
30:07the
30:08constitution
30:08preserving
30:09the
30:09constitution
30:10and making
30:10sure that
30:11organs
30:11function
30:12within the
30:13four walls
30:13and the
30:13principles
30:14of our
30:14constitution
30:15okay Mr.
30:15Avastee quickly
30:16last word
30:17to you
30:17you know
30:18with all
30:18that's
30:18happening
30:19with Mr.
30:19Dubey
30:19and the
30:20comments
30:20do you
30:20think
30:20sure but
30:24Mr.
30:24Avastee
30:24just hear
30:25my question
30:25also on
30:26this
30:26just hear
30:26my question
30:27also on
30:27this
30:28with the
30:28comments
30:28that Mr.
30:28Dubey
30:29has made
30:29or for that
30:29matter
30:30the
30:30honourable
30:30vice
30:30president
30:31now is
30:32there
30:32a lack
30:33of faith
30:34a lack
30:34of confidence
30:35in the
30:35judiciary
30:36that tends
30:36to seep
30:37in because
30:37of public
30:38statements
30:38like this
30:39so as
30:40far as
30:41the faith
30:41in judiciary
30:42is concerned
30:43it's a very
30:43different manner
30:44from contempt
30:44of court
30:45now the
30:45judiciary
30:45has to
30:46ensure
30:47that the
30:48people have
30:48faith in
30:49its judgments
30:49and of course
30:50I'm sure
30:51they still do
30:51but on the
30:53limited point
30:54of contempt
30:54there are two
30:55species of
30:55contempt that
30:56are recognised
30:57under a law
30:57one is civil
30:58contempt
30:58where there
30:59is a court
30:59order and it
31:00is violated
31:01and then the
31:02other is
31:02criminal
31:03contempt
31:03so case of
31:04criminal
31:05contempt
31:05occurs
31:06not when
31:07I express
31:08any opinion
31:09about a
31:10judgment
31:10that has
31:11been passed
31:11that is my
31:13right under
31:13a democracy
31:14I even
31:16constitutional
31:16scholars have
31:18the right to
31:19criticise judgments
31:20that have
31:21been written
31:21on constitutional
31:23questions
31:24criminal contempt
31:25occurs when I
31:26interfere with the
31:27administration of
31:28justice
31:28for example
31:30when I try to
31:31bribe a witness
31:32if I were to
31:33try to bribe a
31:33witness I hope
31:34I never do that
31:35that would be
31:36criminal contempt
31:36or for that
31:37matter if a
31:38judge is sitting
31:39in court and
31:39you throw a
31:40paperweight at
31:40the judge
31:41if you don't
31:41like the
31:42judgment or
31:43you throw the
31:43files away
31:44that is criminal
31:45contempt
31:45criticism isn't
31:47contempt
31:47criticism isn't
31:48contempt is your
31:49message
31:49Mr. Avasti
31:50have completely
31:51run out of
31:51time but thank
31:52you Mr. Avasti
31:53Mr. Dehad Rai
31:53and Mahima Singh
31:54for joining us
31:55this evening
31:55makes for a
31:56very interesting
31:56debate of course
31:57judicial overreach
31:59or executive
32:00overreach is
32:00criticism of
32:01Mr. Nishikandu
32:02be fair or not
32:03we leave it to
32:04you to decide
32:05at this point
32:06we will continue
32:06tracking the story
32:07very very closely
32:08thank you for
32:09tuning in