Siddharth Varadarajan, the founding Editor of notorious ultra-left propaganda website – The Wire, put his jury hat today to co-relate the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom over the issue of suspension of Parliament to criticise Supreme Court of India for not ‘beginning’ hearings on the petition relating to the abrogation of Article 370.
Varadarajan, an American citizen, who often tries to meddle in the internal affairs of India through his anti-India narrative, went on to invent strange equivalence between the recent British Supreme Court decision to rule suspension of the British parliament illegal and the alleged ‘inaction’ of the Supreme Court of India in hearing the petitions pertaining to the abrogation of Article 370.
British parliament was suspended for 5 weeks, the UK Supreme Court has moved swiftly to declare the govt move illegal. Modi govt scrapped Art 370 and not just suspended but abolished J&K as a State. The Indian Supreme Court has yet to even begin hearings! https://t.co/yc5IihsCaD
— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) September 24, 2019
Through his tweets, Varadarajan went on to give a moral lecture to the Supreme Court of India by stating that the UK parliament moved swiftly to declare the decision of Boris Johnson to prorogue the parliament ‘illegal’ while claiming that Indian courts are yet to begin hearing. However, the ‘theory of relativity’ of Varadarajan to assert that Indian courts are delaying the hearing of petitions concerning the issue of Kashmir is untrue.
Boris Johnson’s ‘advice’ to suspend parliament and the ruling of Supreme Court of UK:
The judgement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom pertains to a recent decision made by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, where he had advised the Queen, who is the head of the state, to prorogue parliament for five weeks till October 14.
The controversial decision by Boris Johnson was immediately denounced by several politicians across the political spectrum. However, the British Prime Minister had refused to withdraw his recommendation to the Queen.
Soon, several petitions were filed challenging the advice of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue the parliament. Interestingly, the England High Court refused to take up the matter, arguing that it was beyond the purview of the judiciary. However, Scotland appeal court ruled that Boris Johnson’s move was unconstitutional and malafide.
Finally, the Supreme Court of the UK formed an 11-judge bench which ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision was unlawful.
With the prorogation of the British parliament by Boris Johnson is now considered to be null and void, the Supreme Court of the UK has now restored the earlier status of the parliament while ruling that it was for the Speakers of the Commons and the Lords to decide the next course of the action. The Supreme Court of the UK has actually put the ball back to the British parliament to decide on the issue of prorogation.
Why the comparison between the two Supreme Court rulings is illogical?
The Indian liberals fascination with the western cultural and legal system is quite astonishing. However, the attempts made by them to appropriate western system, be it legal, political, cultural to bring relevance to the Indian system is rather absurd and illogical. The attempts made by the liberals to relate the British Supreme Court action on the executive order and an alleged ‘inaction’ by Indian Supreme Court is mere propaganda to put pressure on the country’s executive and the judiciary, which is already hearing a series of petitions on the abrogation of Article 370.
The claims of the ‘inaction’ of Supreme Court in hearing the pleas made by the section of Indian ‘liberal-secular’ media is an outright lie as the apex court has been continuously hearing petitions related to the Article 370 and also has given various directions to the executive pertaining to the easing of restrictions in the Kashmir. The Supreme Court of India has given rulings on Article 370 whenever they considered it to be necessary.
To blame the Supreme Court for not complying to the wishes of the Indian liberals is nothing short of contempt against the Supreme Court’s decisions and the law of the land. The liberals who often jump to praise the judiciary when it delivers favourable judgements have now begun to blame the courts as it has taken its time to decide on one of the most critical cases in the history of this country. The courts in doing so, have snubbed the legal activists and PIL warriors, causing worry to the ‘liberal’ ecosystem.
Secondly, the reason that debunks these comparative theories pushed by certain ‘intellectuals’ is that the decision pertaining to the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the state in two Union territories has been done by an elected parliament within the scope and framework of the constitution. The Indian government, which has been elected with a majority of seats in the parliament has democratically passed the acts in the legislature to revoke special status, including the support of various of other opposition parties.
However, the prorogation of the British parliament was an executive decision taken by Boris Johnson government contrary to a majority decision taken by the Indian government to scrap the contentious provision. So, British courts nullifying an executive decision cannot be compared with the Supreme Court of India’s decision to carefully consider a legitimate law passed by a democratically elected parliament.
In addition to that, the United Kingdom has no documented constitution and the rules, regulations, laws pertaining to its polity is interpreted through various acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions.
However, in India, there exists a constitution, which has a detailed framework with specific procedures directing organs of the state to act upon. So, the courts in India mostly decide the legality of a law on the question of procedures establish by the law rather than due process of the law.
With this, there is a limited scope to institutions to interpret constitutional provisions. Hence, British Supreme Courts have wide powers to step in and amend its uncodified constitution contrary to the Indian courts. The Indian judiciary has always acted within the scope and framework of the constitution and has often stayed away from making laws, which is the responsibility of the legislature.
Further, the judgement by the British Supreme Court has recognised the power of the British parliament to make rules for its conduct pertaining to the prorogation of the house and stayed away from dictating procedural aspects.