Savanth against major statute changes

By Our Special Correspondent

KOCHI, NOV. 10. There is no need for making major changes in the Constitution of India, according to Mr. Justice Savanth, former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court and Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, Maharashtra.

Delivering the third Easwara Iyer Memorial lecture on `Fifty years of working of the Indian Constitution' here today, Mr. Justice Savanth said a satisfactory role had been played by the Constitution as regards protection of human rights and judicial review. A major amendment to the Constitution in these areas was uncalled for.

He said there had been 90 amendments to the Constitution without changing its basic structure during the past 50 years. The constitutional Schedules have gone up from 8 to 12. The moot question is who is responsible for the problems in the sovereign State. The interpretation of the Constitution has wide ramifications. The pertinent issue is whether it is the Constitution that has failed the people or is it the course of adopted action that has failed the Constitution.

Referring to judicial activism, Mr. Justice Savanth said it was condemned by bureaucracy as judicial despotism. But it should not be forgotten that the power of Judiciary is a basic feature of democracy. The Judiciary is forced to step in where there is lack of commitment on the part of the other democratic institutions.

He said many of the writ petitions originate from imperfect legislations. Regarding public interest litigations (PIL), he said judges are not exceeding their powers, but are constrained to interfere in matters of public interest. Nevertheless, if the PIL facility is misused, the courts are awarding cost to the respondent. In several cases, judicial activism arises out of the complexities of administration.

Mr. Justice Savanth said the Constitution is neither an ordinary law nor a formal document, it is a living organism. It is flexible as well as rigid. It is bulky, but this is inevitable in a gigantic country like India.

Regarding protection of human rights, he said the rule of law is a basic structure of the Constitution and it is the duty of the courts to uphold the law whenever there is a conflict of interests pertaining to the minority and the majority. No other political term has been misinterpreted as democracy. Several countries where personal liberty has a different meaning in comparison to India claim to be democracies. Viewed against this aspect, the interpretation of fundamental rights assumes importance. Citing the Mandal case, Mr. Justice Savanth said the court examined the Central Government's action and ruled that poverty alone cannot be the criterion to determine backwardness.

He said that though the judge is not a self-starter, judicial power can drive the Executive to take action. The courts have to intervene in a whole lot of issues such as criminalisation of politics, electoral reforms, proliferation of political parties and Centre-State relations. It is significant that the Constitution provides scope for solution to diverse problems, he said, stressing that while amendments are required to deal with emerging situations, no major changes are required in the basic structure of the Constitution.

Presiding over the function, Mr. M.K. Damodaran, former Advocate General, said the internal checks and balances ingrained in the Constitution have helped in overcoming many an administrative crisis in the country ruled by contradictory political ideologies. Mr. V.K. Beeran, Additional Advocate General, also spoke. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, joint secretary of the S. Easwara Iyer Law Foundation, proposed a vote of thanks.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : 36 killed in Amboori landslip
Next     : Jacob sees bid to malign police policy