You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Is Supreme Court supreme than the parliament and the president?

    Generally, a law or bill is passed by both houses and is approved by the President. Can such a bill or law signed by the President be stayed by the Supreme Court?
    Is our Supreme Court superior to our parliament and president of India?
    Can the judges of the Supreme Court put a stay on the bills passed and approved by the President?
    Is it not an insult to Parliament and President?
    Is there anything in our constitution to support this action?
  • #720669
    There is no doubt that the office of the President and both houses of Parliament are the supreme places in which the major decisions are taken and passed. But unfortunately in India there are provisions for the people to knock at the doors of SC to redress their grievances if they feel that the govt going against their wish. Normally the executive and judiciary does not have the confrontation and over the past years there has been interference of court into the decisions challenged even the orders passed by the majority govt. In fact the govt can question not to interfere in the case where the Parliament which is the supreme body that has debated and passed the bills and yet SC wants to questions the bill and keep on hold. Now doubt SC has good reputation in the eyes of govt and the people but it should not involve in cases where rules are already y accepted and going.
    K Mohan @ Moga
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #720675
    Legislature, Executive and Judiciary are seperate entities with distinctive functions. There is no question of who is superior to the other. First let us consider their functions. The main function of the Legislature is to make laws. The Executive implements the laws enacted by the legislature. The Judiciary is the arm of the Government that settles the disputes and delivers justice to all. It interprets the laws enacted by the Legislature and settles all the disputes that may arise between the Government and the others. It interprets laws for their legality and constitutional validity. In a way, the Judiciary is the arm that safeguards the provisions of the Constitution. When it comes to powers, they are not supposed to interfere with the others but at times it becomes necessary that encroachment becomes necessary.The Judiciary has the power of reviewing acts and the laws enacted by the Legislature. It can strike down a law made by the Legislature if it is unconstitutional.
    The Judiciary has the power to stay a law made by the Legislature. It cannot be looked upon as an insult. The necessary amendments have to be made. A strong Judiciary is essential for a democracy. It is the hope for all the people. Whatever the Judiciary does will be within the ambit of law and the Constitution. The political parties always want to have upperhand over the Judiciary. They tried to have a hand in the appointment of Judges but it was thwarted. Judiciary is the safeguard of the Constitution and any attempt for autocratic governance.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #720676
    Is it your opinion that people should not have access to the Courts in case they have a grievance against the Government?

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #720679
    President and parliament both are higher authorities than the supreme court. But the Supreme Court has the responsibility to judge the legality of the bills passes by the parliament and also It keeps an eye on the functioning of the government.

    "There is no doubt that the office of the President and both houses of Parliament are the supreme places in which the major decisions are taken and passed. But unfortunately in India, there are provisions for the people to knock at the doors of SC to redress their grievances if they feel that the govt going against their wish."

    Is it really "Unfortunate"? Are you sure?

  • #720694
    Judiciary is also an arm of the government. If the Legislature is going wrong somewhere and if the Executive is not implementing the approved acts, Judiciary will come into the picture. It is the duty of the Judiciary to safeguard the interest of the public. This is the facility given by the constitution to the Indian citizens. If that provision is not there, the public might have faced many issues by this time.
    I feel we can't call it as unfortunate. It is our right to go to court. When the decisions come in our favour, we say the court has done well. But if it goes against we feel courts are not doing their job properly, But Judiciary will never get disturbed and it will continue doing its duty.
    The judiciary is having the power to stay any law passed by the Legislature. That is not encroaching into the area of others.

    always confident

  • #720707
    Parliament is supreme than the Supreme Court. It is incorrect for the government to approach or file a case in the Supreme Court for any issue relating to laws or bills passed by them. It is for others to approach the Supreme Court against the Government or Parliament. In the farmers' case, no farmer has approached the Supreme Court, but the government has thrown its ball to the Supreme Court which is absolutely incorrect. The government should be able to handle the situation. If not, it is a weak government. Farmers are right for not accepting the orders of the Supreme Court.
    No life without Sun

  • #720708
    Sun, please verify facts before coming up with arguments. Your averment that no farmer or any interested person has approached the Judiciary for redressal is factually incorrect. The political angle and the intention of the Centre in this regard has already been discussed to some satisfactory extent in this thread. It seems you could not convince yourself with the reasonings put through therein.

    Now, coming to your basic query, please remember that we are a democracy and have a federal system of government. So, it is not the case of supremacy. But, when it comes to the Constitution, it is the responsibility and duty of the Judiciary to ensure that the basic principles of the Indian Constitution are safeguarded and in that respect, the Judiciary has supreme power. It is for the Judiciary to ensure that the Constitutional principles are not harmed in any way.


  • #720713
    Mohan (at the cost of repetition because KVRR and Arafatuzzafar have already brought up the point), just to remind you, the Preamble of our Constitution begins with the words 'We, the People'. So, it is not the governments that should be deciding our fate. The ultimate power is in our hands and it is for the Judiciary to ensure that the fabric of our Constitution is, in no way, eroded.

  • #720721
    Let us discuss. Is the newly passed farm laws are unconstitutional? Did our supreme court found it unconstitutional? If yes. How? The newly framed farm laws are for the upliftment of farmers who are suffering without any price for their products that lead to poverty and committing suicide due to their poor economy. The government has offered them freedom to sell their products to whomever they want to sell. They have an option to choose. There is no compulsion. This is a brief note about the farm laws. It is up to the states whether to follow it or ignore it.
    No life without Sun

  • #720733
    Supreme court has not quashed the farm laws. it has played its part very intelligently and that is what generally Judges are supposed to be doing. This judgement is not an insult of democracy or Govt or farmers. This is only an effort by the Supreme Court to arrive at an amicable solution. It has only stayed the laws time being till the committee report is obtained. Now the leaders of the farmer agitation are not feeling comfortable because they know that the committee will take time and then again the case will be heard in the Supreme court and then Supreme Court may say that the laws are ok as per the committee report. This is the main worry that is troubling the minds of the leaders of the agitators.
    Knowledge is power.

  • #720735
    The power of so called fact finding committee set up by the SC has seen the first setback when one member resigned from the committee and that proves the govt is strong. Even the SC knows that govt is strong and going to win the case but to satisfy the agitating farmers that they too have the legal access on the case the hearing is going through the appointed committee. One thing is sure if the committee formed is to corner the govt,then what is the use of giving it time, the modalities can be spelled immediately but it gave two months times and that proves even court is trying to buy
    the time.

    K Mohan @ Moga
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #720738
    @SuN: What you have said about farm laws why the government is not able to convince them with the same logic of yours, according to farmers reason is that farmers are finding the negative result of these farm bills. E.g. in Bihar APMC mandi has almost been eliminated. Big players are buying their products but still, they are the poorest farmers in India. Why? There is no system of MSP in practice except in Punjab and Haryana. The second example is of Madhya Pradesh, they were asked by big businessmen to cultivate crops but nobody is buying their product. Farmers have not big godowns to store them. Their crops which should be sold at Rs 1800/- per qntl is being sold at Rs 800/- only.
    All farmers of India now is demanding MSP, even those farmers who are in support of these bills they also want MSP. If MSP becomes the part of the act, then this protest will die gradually, because farmers will get a good rate of their crops as no private player can purchase their crops below MSP. Then demand of repeal of laws will lose its impact.

    As far as the committee is concerned when both parties i.e. government and farmer- unions have talked 9th times to find an amicable solution but despite being 70 men in total from both sides are not able to come to any conclusion then why only four members committee can find an amicable solution. ?
    Farmers are adamant to continue their protest until their demands are accepted.

    Any bill which has been passed by the parliament will have to be implemented by the state of governments also. It's not as easy as you think.

  • #720749
    The best thing would be - Leave it to the states to decide whether to follow the bills or ignore the farm bills. The central government should not interfere with the state's ruling. The government has given ample freedom to the farmers to choose what they wish. Punjab farmers can ignore the law and resume their business as usual. What is the problem and where is the problem? No problem at all. Why a protest against the government?
    Surely, there is a hidden force behind this protest that insist on the repeal of the farm laws.

    No life without Sun

  • #720752
    I am also of the firm opinion that many states which are passing the benefits of new farm laws to their farmers were mute on the ongoing stir and that proves their total support to the cause and therefore the implementation and the success of new farm laws be left to the discretion of the state and let the farmers of respective states prevail upon their own govts whether to go for the laws or against it . By dictating terms for the cause of some farm unions it would be injustice to all those farmers pan India who were getting the benefits either too before the SC capped to hold the laws now.
    K Mohan @ Moga
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #720759
    No Govt is perfect and we can only say good or bad on a comparative chart. So many people in our country believe that the present Govt is doing better than the earlier regimes. If it is true than it is a danger ringing bell for the opposition as their political carer will only be limited to staging agitations and rallies and they will not come back to power in the future. Which political party in the world will like that to happen? So this is probably the hidden worry and threat that opposition is seeing and to cope up with that they will find each and every opportunity to make a hue and cry to make the present regime weaker. Sometimes they may be right and sometimes they may be wrong. But it is sufficient to mislead the gullible common masses.
    Knowledge is power.

  • #720760
    Mr. Mohan, you have not answered the question raised by me, Arafatuzzafar, and Saji. Do you sincerely believe that the people of India should not have access to the court of law in case they have a grievance against the Government?
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #720761
    @SuN: One leader Chadhuni said that these bills are not for farmers but big Agro-businessmen, the proof is that AALL (Adani group) had already built big godowns in several states. Why they started acquiring land and building for godown in 2017 when the bills were passed in 2020?
    I don't know the answer to this question of farmers. Such questions create some doubts about these bills in mind.

    These bills will not be repealed even if the supreme court advises the government or even the government wishes to take these laws back. Priya Prasunn Vajpai has highlighted this aspect of this matter. Indian government takes a loan from IMF, World Bank and others, IMF wants to see reformation in agriculture sector for which IMF has already given a loan to India and will continue in future also, provided that Indian government implement these laws also. Google to read/listen to the latest views of IMF officials about these laws.

    I reiterate that farmers are vote bank of BJP and most of the farmers of the country are against these laws. It may be a big loss in the next elections for BJP. It worries the party also.

    I reiterate once again if parliament has made any laws all Indian states are bound to implement them in the federal system.

    If agriculture does not come under the jurisdiction of central government then why it introduced ordinance and got bills passed in parliament when the lockdown was clamped in the entire country? These are some questions of farmers.

    I don't doubt the intention of the government but such questions of farmers are to be answered.

  • #720770
    If someone has a doubt about the Essential Commodity Act, whether it would benefit the farmers, I would strongly say 'Yes'.

    I am dead sure that the essential commodities act would help the farmers in a big way. Earlier, when there were restrictions and limitations to store the commodities, there were no buyers from the farmers due to the fear of excess holding of the commodities. The farmers were at loss due to perishable commodities.

    Now the farmers are free to sell their products and buyers can buy an unlimited amount of products, store them, and dispose of them at their convenience. They can undertake contract farming and earn a good sum. They can put up their prices to the buyers.

    With the advent of improvement in food technology, nothing goes waste. Take the example of tomatoes that is being made into sauces & Ketchup and exported. Look at potatoes that are made into lovely chips and exported. No cereal goes waste. They are fried and packed and exported. The same is the case with oilseeds used for cosmetics. All fruit products like Mango, apple, Guava, Grapes, lemon, etc are being extracted, packed and sold as juices.

    Corn is used for making Whiskey, Potatoes for Vodka, Barley for beer, Grapes for wine, and Sugarcane for Rum. We must thank the technology. Nothing is stocked and wasted. We must be thankful to the corporates for giving the proper shape to the farm products purchased from the farmers.

    There is no question of hoarding or stocking to make money. The farmers, the buyer and the customer would be very very happy.

    My simple explanation should make you understand better about the essential commodities.

    It would be an unwanted fear of stocking and hoarding by the buyers to sell it at higher prices. Such things should be highlighted and discussed to convince the farmers by the government and Supreme Court.

    No life without Sun

  • #720771
    Sun, dead sure of what? Corporates dictating terms? Corporates dictating the farmers what they should cultivate? Corporates deciding the price? If I, as a farmer, could sell my products on my own choice, it will not be the case now.

    It is quite evident from your wordings that you are basically against the farm bills but is trying to put up points for the sake of argument. It does not hold good. Let us be open to facts, irrespective of our political inclinations.

    @KVRR, Regarding having access to the Judiciary, let us just discard such thoughtless and imaginary suggestions of a few who are unaware (seemingly) of the facts on the ground.


  • #720775
    In the first place, why the Essential Commodities Act was introduced in 1955? Why there were limitations not to stock beyond a certain quantity? It was due to hoarding and black marketeering by the traders. The traders purchase the foodstuffs from farmers at the market rate and stockpile them to sell them at higher rates. Who is benefitting? Certainly not the farmer but the trader. Who is suffering? The consumer.
    You are talking about processed food. The farmer is certainly not processing the raw material. It is the trader that processes the raw material and sells it for a profit. Who is benefiting? It is not the farmer but the processor. In no case, the farmer gets benefited. It is the private parties who purchase, stock, and then sell for a higher profit.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #720778
    @SuN: See this reply.
    Is Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 helpful to farmers?

  • #720786
    Dear Members,
    The farmers have a big union. Those unions should unite and fix the prices for the farm products. They can replace the APMC and Mandis. Now the so-called farmers are together to protest on the borders. Why not the same farmers get united to sell their products at a profitable rate?

    According to me, contract farming would help the farmers that would ensure a sure and profitable income for them. They should deal in such a way that they don't get into a loss. Even if they lose their crops for unforeseen reasons, the contractors should be able to help them. I do not think that the corporates would put the farmers into severe problems.

    There are not only Adani and Ambani. There are thousands of Adanis and Ambanis who are ready to take the farm products. I am dead sure that the life of farmers would improve a lot due to these newly framed laws.

    We are dreaming bad without realizing the reality.

    No life without Sun

  • #720790
    Sun, let us not be in a Utopian world. I am surprised that you are still talking about the farmer's union. Do you think this government that has turned a blind eye to this nationwide protest can be woken up anytime? Common! The reaction of the centre is proof of how 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

    And why no responses to the points raised by others? Repeating (merely repeating) your stand discarding other viewpoints does not help in establishing yourself.


  • #720794
    If there is a will there is always a way. Our government has shown the path to the farmers for their betterment. It is the time to make use of the opportunity. These farm laws would avoid the middlemen who eat away the farmers profit. It will help the farmers, the buyer and the consumer. The poor farmers will be benefitted, and the rich farmers who have control over the poor farmers will be affected. Therefore, the protest is from the rich farmers.

    I do not believe in the chorus singing that Ambani and Adani will take the products and become richer. It is wrong to think. Adani and Ambani have provided employment to many Indian famiies to survive. They are not living for themselves, but making others to live. It is the opposition who cry taking the name of the corporates. Without the corporates many families in India would live in utter poverty without employment.

    No life without Sun

  • #720871
    Supreme court can advise in all matters of dispute if someone approaches it. It has power to take suo moto views also on its own if some situation warrants that. Now in this case court has advised a way to sort out the matter but people are adamant and not listening to it. Then what is the solution now. Till what time these agitating people will sit on the roads. This is not in a good taste. No side can be adamant. Solutions should be found out with talks.
    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.

  • Sign In to post your comments