Raghuram Rajan, Narayan Murthy Add Voice Against Rising Intolerance

[Bang Galore]

The basic structure doctrine does not add anything to the constitution. It merely ensures that nothing vital is stripped out of it. It cannot innovate, it cannot inject, it can only protect from destruction. The basic structure doctrine is not an ultimate weapon in the hands of the courts; it remains an interpretation of the constitution including a definition of its unchangeable core which is sought to be protected from changes dictated by political exigency.

I think he is referring to the idea that the basic rights granted to citizens are part of the basic structure of the constitution & it cannot be withheld or restricted by some part of a specific law which might be what the courts are leaning to with the Muslim personal law.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Just google Sasikala teacher and watch the videos

What she saying?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Parliament will have to legislate on this some time but the courts are now clearly pushing and starting to take a harder line. Best to allow for the lead to come from them, sooner or later, most parts of the Muslim personal law are liable to be struck down as being in violation to the basic rights granted to citizens. The SC has already made that observation.

Even in Muslim countries, many parts of the personal law that still applies to Muslims in India have been struck down. We need to get close at least to Tunisia and to Algeria, or even to Pakistan, where aspects of the law are strictly defined and interpreted, compared to those same aspects' treatment in Indian courts.

I think he is referring to the idea that the basic rights granted to citizens are part of the basic structure of the constitution & it cannot be withheld or restricted by some part of a specific law which might be what the courts are leaning to with the Muslim personal law.

That is indeed a possibility.

I think he is referring to the idea that the basic rights granted to citizens are part of the basic structure of the constitution & it cannot be withheld or restricted by some part of a specific law which might be what the courts are leaning to with the Muslim personal law.

The courts have already done yeoman work in the wake of the thoroughly cynical legislative response to the Shah Bano case decision. They have interpreted the settlement to be made in line with personal law in such a way that the unfortunate woman has ample means at her disposal.

This kind of judicial interpretation is possible and will work wonders.

 

[utraash]

Other minorities living here in this country without any fear n even without any sense of being minority....
But the other side we have a minority which is in mode of victimhood from centuries still harbour this in this competitive era .... I still wonder what victimisation done to these ppl in past by native ppl ? Why they need special care/attention....

 

[Bang Galore]

That is indeed a possibility.




The courts have already done yeoman work in the wake of the thoroughly cynical legislative response to the Shah Bano case decision. They have interpreted the settlement to be made in line with personal law in such a way that the unfortunate woman has ample means at her disposal.

This kind of judicial interpretation is possible and will work wonders.

I have been saying this for as long as I remember, even in previous discussions on the UCC here. That sooner or later, some Muslim woman will approach the court saying that her rights as a citizen of India is not being allowed to her because she is a Muslim (same with Christians, hence the recent rulings on both). Essentially charging the state with religious discrimination on fundamental rights. These laws simply cannot hold.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have been saying this for as long as I remember, even in previous discussions on the UCC here. That sooner or later, some Muslim woman will approach the court saying that her rights as a citizen of India is not being allowed to her because she is a Muslim (same with Christians, hence the recent rulings on both). Essentially charging the state with religious discrimination on fundamental rights. These laws simply cannot hold.

Actually, considering the number of feisty Muslim women, that this has not happened already is a source of surprise and discomfort to me. What could be holding them back? They don't care much about their surrounding Muslim ambience, so it couldn't be that.

The day the challenge is made, the entire rickety structure will fall to the ground. Just like the scandalous Christian inheritance system collapsed under Mary Roy's challenge.

I have been saying this for as long as I remember, even in previous discussions on the UCC here. That sooner or later, some Muslim woman will approach the court saying that her rights as a citizen of India is not being allowed to her because she is a Muslim (same with Christians, hence the recent rulings on both). Essentially charging the state with religious discrimination on fundamental rights. These laws simply cannot hold.

At the same time, it points to the completely compromised state of the legislative, that it waits for the judiciary to do its dirty work for it. Shameful.

 

[Iggy]

Maybe outside India, but not in India. You cannot really ignore how seculars have been behaving ever since independence. IF you have any doubt, read the articles written by Indian journalists after French Cartoonist Killings..

I dont know whether you are ignorant or deliberately not trying to see that facts, but if you think only Hindus were under attack in this country, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Spectre]

The basic structure doctrine does not add anything to the constitution. It merely ensures that nothing vital is stripped out of it. It cannot innovate, it cannot inject, it can only protect from destruction. The basic structure doctrine is not an ultimate weapon in the hands of the courts; it remains an interpretation of the constitution including a definition of its unchangeable core which is sought to be protected from changes dictated by political exigency.



And what, in your opinion, is he doing about it that shows up in daily life?

This is the kind of debate, I wish we had more of in PDF

SC has consistently argued for Uniform Civil Code to be implemented as evidenced by:

1. In Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano case CJI Chatrachud said “A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies.” It is another matter the fool of the took Rajiv Gandhi opened Pandora's Box by enacting Muslim Women Protection on Divorce Act on the grounds that mere observations are not sufficient for implementation of UCC.

2. In Sara Mudgal Case Justice Kuldip Singh, said that “the Rulers of the day are not in a mood to retrieve Article 44 from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949. The Governments – which have come and gone – have so far failed to make any effort towards “unified personal law for all Indians”. He went on to note that, “When more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of “uniform civil code” for all citizens in the territory of India.”

3. In John Vollamattam case again the courts remarked We would like to State that Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavour to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India…It is a matter of great regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.

They have shied away from directly making a ruling on this case because they think India is not ready for it, same as in the case of Homosexuality. This is not a mark against them as courts all over the world adopt a similar wait and watch policy. In US the courts waited for decades before making a ruling on civil rights and rights of LGBT because like it or not courts do take the prevailing public opinion into consideration when interpreting the constitution and associated laws and amendments. Courts have to very careful about Judicial over reach hence only when wind of public opinion and ergo majority political will is in favor of issue they consider such landmark rulings in presence of constraints which make legislation unlikely due to pressure groups.

You have rightly said that Basic Structure Doctrine is a protective armor - but - it can be a lethal weapon too in the arsenal courts subject to their selective and creative interpretation of what basic structure actually entails - when the honorable court deems fit and proper it will step in to protect the rights of Muslim women - which would clear the way for a 13 bench judgement on the Uniform Civil Code - make it legally bulletproof.

P.S. India I think is still not ready because while majority opinion is in favor of UCC there is a very strong and vocal minority against it, Courts would wait for this minority become less vociferous which is unlikely as the present Govt has given wings to the detractors of UCC who would connect any unfavorable judgement like on UCC/ Ram Mandir to discrimination by courts

P.P.S @Bang Galore I just saw your post - you said essentially the same thing but with brevity and much more eloquence.

 

[ranjeet]

When you have people telling you to convert to Hinduism to live in India and asking government to check the population of minority, its hard to believe that Hindutvavadi believe in equality..

can I bother you for a quote for the bold bit in your post?

 

[Spectre]

Actually, considering the number of feisty Muslim women, that this has not happened already is a source of surprise and discomfort to me. What could be holding them back? They don't care much about their surrounding Muslim ambience, so it couldn't be that.

The issue is tricky because of religious dichotomy in the mix - Uniform Civil Code in the court of public opinion is less associated with rights of Muslim Women and more with Hindu Demand hence anti -Islam. Of-Course the educated muslim women know the difference but the educated muslim women are also seldom bothered by the lack of rights and hence don't have a personal stake.

Again my comments are without supporting data and just based on speculation.

 

[vsdoc]

I"d like to cut the politically correct BS and say it as it is.

The India I would like my kids to grow up in and make their future in is not compatible with the unfettered growth of a certain type of demographic.

We need to control that demographic in stasis and possible future realignment and I am confident that part of the clear mandate of the nation is toward that aim.

If my future and that of my people is threatened, then the niceties end there.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is the kind of debate, I wish we had more of in PDF

SC has consistently argued for Uniform Civil Code to be implemented as evidenced by:

1. In Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano case CJI Chatrachud said “A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies.” It is another matter the fool of the took Rajiv Gandhi opened Pandora's Box by enacting Muslim Women Protection on Divorce Act on the grounds that mere observations are not sufficient for implementation of UCC.

2. In Sara Mudgal Case Justice Kuldip Singh, said that “the Rulers of the day are not in a mood to retrieve Article 44 from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949. The Governments – which have come and gone – have so far failed to make any effort towards “unified personal law for all Indians”. He went on to note that, “When more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of “uniform civil code” for all citizens in the territory of India.”

3. In John Vollamattam case again the courts remarked We would like to State that Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavour to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India…It is a matter of great regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.

They have shied away from directly making a ruling on this case because they think India is not ready for it, same as in the case of Homosexuality. This is not a mark against them as courts all over the world adopt a similar wait and watch policy. In US the courts waited for decades before making a ruling on civil rights and rights of LGBT because like it or not courts do take the prevailing public opinion into consideration when interpreting the constitution and associated laws and amendments. Courts have to very careful about Judicial over reach hence only when wind of public opinion and ergo majority political will is in favor of issue they consider such landmark rulings in presence of constraints which make legislation unlikely due to pressure groups.

You have rightly said that Basic Structure Doctrine is a protective armor - but - it can be a lethal weapon too in the arsenal courts subject to their selective and creative interpretation of what basic structure actually entails - when the honorable court deems fit and proper it will step in to protect the rights of Muslim women - which would clear the way for a 13 bench judgement on the Uniform Civil Code - make it legally bulletproof.

P.S. India I think is still not ready because while majority opinion is in favor of UCC there is a very strong and vocal minority against it, Courts would wait for this minority become less vociferous which is unlikely as the present Govt has given wings to the detractors of UCC who would connect any unfavorable judgement like on UCC/ Ram Mandir to discrimination by courts

P.P.S @Bang Galore I just saw your post - you said essentially the same thing but with brevity and much more eloquence.

I am afraid that this is a very populist view of jurisprudence in India. Not to recognise how Common Law jurisprudence was actually implemented, not to recognise the huge changes and alterations that the first British judges made in their own systems of working, not to recognise the enormous amount of bridging legislation that was brought in, to bridge the personal law systems of the country and the British Common Law that was sought to be implemented under British rule will inevitably lead to the kind of shallow conclusions that have been reported above.

I will rest it at this point, but it is simply not realistic that what we wish to see happen today should be sought to be implemented without any reference to what went on before and went on after.

I"d like to cut the politically correct BS and say it as it is.

The India I would like my kids to grow up in and make their future in is not compatible with the unfettered growth of a certain type of demographic.

We need to control that demographic in stasis and possible future realignment and I am confident that part of the clear mandate of the nation is toward that aim.

If my future and that of my people is threatened, then the niceties end there.

Cheers, Doc

Cut the crap, Doc. And use the scientific training you have been given. There is no uncontrolled growth of any demographic. Study the figures and state your position, please. Nobody's future is threatened, and I can take you through it one little bit at a time. But please refrain from these jumping up and down statements.

I"d like to cut the politically correct BS and say it as it is.

The India I would like my kids to grow up in and make their future in is not compatible with the unfettered growth of a certain type of demographic.

We need to control that demographic in stasis and possible future realignment and I am confident that part of the clear mandate of the nation is toward that aim.

If my future and that of my people is threatened, then the niceties end there.

Cheers, Doc

Will you do me the favour of bearing with me while I walk you through the issues? It's your call. I won't presume to lecture you, but I would like an opportunity to set right the dangerously wrong impression that is being hawked around, and that you might buy into.

 

[Spectre]

I am afraid that this is a very populist view of jurisprudence in India. Not to recognise how Common Law jurisprudence was actually implemented, not to recognise the huge changes and alterations that the first British judges made in their own systems of working, not to recognise the enormous amount of bridging legislation that was brought in, to bridge the personal law systems of the country and the British Common Law that was sought to be implemented under British rule will inevitably lead to the kind of shallow conclusions that have been reported above.

I will rest it at this point, but it is simply not realistic that what we wish to see happen today should be sought to be implemented without any reference to what went on before and went on after.

I admit I am not familiar with evolution of jurisprudence in India but I fail to see the connection to the context and the issue you have taken umbrage against. Of-course my conclusions would be shallow as I have just googled the meat and sprinkled it with my layman's understanding of the matter, it goes without saying the purpose of time spend on this forum for me atleast is not to indulge in one upmanship but to learn more - about Pakistan, about defense, about law, about India, about Hindutva about Islam and about things I don't even know exist and that is why I cherish my discussions with you and many other members. The modern age has forced the man to be in silo and for me that was finance.

I don't mean to presume - but perhaps a long day?

Regards

 

[Iggy]

What she saying?

Abe Sasikala he Shakeela nahi.

can I bother you for a quote for the bold bit in your post?

'We will free India of Muslims and Christians by 2021': DJS leader vows to continue 'ghar wapsi' plans and restore 'Hindu glory'  | Daily Mail Online

 

[vsdoc]

In any case, one day will come when a substantial number of Muslims will call for a greater role for Islam in public life.

I agree 100%.

It will happen when their numbers grow.

As a Parsi, we did not leave our ancestral home and come to an alien land to see the same thing repeat again.

As I said earlier, the niceties stop when my way of life and my people are threatened.

As they will invariably be.

I am really not excited about losing another homeland.

Hope that's clear enough.

Cheers, Doc

@Joe Shearer

Your analysis is always welcome.

Could you share with us why your family left their ancestral land and moved to India after Partition?

After all, in some form, you me and Sarthak have something in common.

Cheers, Doc