ssz - lr(-nili l -l ~i

( ~-| ( (i n ~i :| (
iin|i i ln li i ni+
-( ii -ni :l ll( l(
l i (i r iin| (+
~|n -l-- |(l-| n
i(( -i| ll( l(-i i- -i
( (i(i i i li +
-i(| (| r-i (i -
(((( ~|n -l-- |(l-| ~i
r-(( |(l--| il l n|i :(ii i
i- ii li+
zaaszaa - iri( i-|| -i
i-| - ~in(i( i in| (
iin ( + ~ir( r
i(ii i (i (i | (i(n (|+
(i iri( | : r((n| ~i (i
| (i ( i ir i-
li+
r-(( --| l : l(~| |
li(-in n-i-|
--ii ~ln| :(i r-(( (
(i rii r-(( |(l-| l(~| - r|-
~( r-|( ~i ~|n -l--
|(l-| il( (i: i (
ril-( (l-i ~i:) l-
-l-- i(ii i ll(~i l(l
:l-nri - (-i l r-(( --|
l i- li l rii
-i ( ~r-( ii -l -l--- ( :lnri i ii
--i ( i| ~ir(i i:
ri -~ ( l-~n | li(-n
lr(-ni i -l-- -i i i(i (
r r+ l r- i r+
--ii | ~(i a | in iii
| -( - in i ((i (
-(i r| il( -i(| ln r (r
--nii rr si) : l(~|
l-i :-- ia -r-( i
i ni l i ~i :li in
ii i- li i l ~i
-nil( ~i- -(i - in n|- |
i+ ~~ir i i r l in
- i| -l il ~-ni
-l - n|( li | iil(i
(| ((i~i ~ilri nii(i ((i~i
n|-i | lin ii ii ri
ll( l( iln - i| i- li
l ls i ~i : i i| ll(
l( - -l-- i(i - r r+
:li :-il- ~ - - ll(
l( iln
(| ii| | (in r l ( li i|
~i i( ( ( r ii
--ii i i :li
:-il- ~ - - ll( l( |
iln i (| r+
in i ll( l( iln
- (rn| -
CIVIL SERVICES (MAIN) EXAMINATION, 2010
NEW DELHI - 110 069 - 11th May, 2011 / Vaisakha 21, 1933 Saka
Concluded
union public service commission
Rank Roll. No. Name
35 033523 Tariq Thomas
59 123121 Mir Mohammed Ali
145 000113 Danish Ashraf
152 341804 Nair Reshma Reghunathan
169 071832 Mohammad Imran
180 059148 Syed Abid Rasheed Shah
187 351125 Zafar Ajmal Kidwai
208 001032 Adil Khan
226 020180 Mohammed Ali Shihab A
245 004221 Abid Khan
249 312359 Anam Benish
341 047571 Gulzar Ahmad Wani
363 080609 Ri yaz Iqbal
431 022617 N Mohammed Ali
450 351154 Shaikh Aminkhan Yasinkhan
460 159666 Syed Wasif Haider
580 006246 Annies Kanmani Joy
585 008447 Abid Hussain Sadiq
611 011477 Ahmed Muyeen Farooqi
661 219223 T Arivazhagan
737 330454 Mohd Yakoob Shekha
740 332527 Yusuf Kabir Ansari
794 000686 Mohd Aijaz
795 320235 Shiraz Daneshyar
857 117036 Azhar Jamal

Mumbai set up a centre in 2009 to train

Muslim candidates for the Union Public
Ser vi ces Commi ssi on ( UPSC)
examinations or what is known as the
civil services exam. Places like Delhi
and Aligarh have set up such centres in
the past.
Saifullah said that it is not lack of
enthusiasm that is preventing Muslims
from taking their due share in the
bureaucratic services. While the
written papers are kept confidential and
cannot be accessed for evaluation, there
is a scope for prejudice in the viva voce
(interviews). It may not be something
against particular candidates, but rather
a disproportionate favouring of certain
kind of candidates, said Saifullah.
At Mumbai's Haj House, around
30 candidates are preparing for the 2011
examination scheduled in June.
This is our first fully trained
batch. The students face a lot of
disadvantages: most come from rural
areas, they have a problem with their
pronunciation and their family
backgrounds are a problem. But despite
these handicaps, we are hoping that at
least 5 will get through, said former
principal of Anjuman-i-Islam's Akbar
Peerbhoy College SAM Hashmi.
Agency: DNA
ia : ~n | lln
~-l( ini l(ni l(iin -
~|n -l-- l((l(ni
ln i |aa ~( ~|
(ir i r l((l(ni : l(~|
|a-a~i:a~ia -|- i:l--- i
: ~n | lln ~-l( ini
l(ni l(iin - ~-il(n (| r+ i
ii z za ~i(i ( (r (i:
n( (i l ii(| rin|+
dqN ugha gksrk fdrkcksa
iS fdrkcsa i<+ yks]
vxys oD+rksa esa rks
nks y+t+ vlj j[krs FksA
xkskk&,&lq[k+u
mtkys viuh ;knksa ds
gekjs lkFk jgus nks]
u tkus fdl xyh esa
ft+Unxh dh kke gks tk;sA
-a a ii (i: ll |a:a-a ~|n
~|n - - l-i (ln - ( l(~ -aa ir| i
OUR GOAL-SHELTER FOR ALL r i ~i i l(i i - -- (i
l -iiln li ni+ i--i - i ii-| in -ir ~lii|
riii (i (ii ni+ : -- i ii- n( -|a a n((| i|
iilin li+ i-(n i i( - ir| ir( i -(i(i( i ni r+
rrza =z+rz = zt=es RNI No. U.P.H.I.N. 2003 / 12256, Postal Reg. No. ALG/14/20010-12
rt+= =r=r srs= :tr=t zrsatoe 202002 (%&0571- 2406414, 9761976601
Email: salamevatan@gmail.com, Website:www. salamevatan.org
r a + )aa atoe +rrz ) = ze)) - = =.ee rtr+ = )ee/-( sr+ =r)
=-r:+- sre =: s:
SALAMEVATAN
lykesoru
fgUnh ikf{kd lekpkji=
atoe +rrz ) s ze)) lykes oru 2
I must at the outset express my
deep sense of gratitude to the Institute
of Objective Studies for undertaking
this program of talks on different
aspects of the Constitution of India, the
laws which touch us day in and day out
and about which a comprehensive
understanding is a prime necessity.
Every constitution has a historic
background. There is no constitution of
any country, which is framed in a total
vacuum. The Constitution of India was
also framed in a historic background.
We had the experience of the French
Revolution, the American War of
Independence and the declarations that
followed thereafter. We also had the
experience of the Russian Revolution.
Besides, we had experienced the
working of the Government of India
Act, 1935. We also had the additional
benefit of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which came about the
time when our constitution-makers
were engaged in a serious debate in
regard t o t he frami ng of t he
Constitution. We must also bear in
mind that India had some experience,
though little, of the working of a
democratic system after the 1935 Act
was put in place.
It is in this historic background
that our constitution-makers were
engaged in the process of framing a
constitution for free India. You can see
the traces of this experience, the
hi st ori cal background and t he
experience that the constitution-makers
had, writ large on the constitution. The
four pillars on which the edifice of the
Constitution of India stands are justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity; the
French Revolution is reflective of these
basic values. The traces of the
American Declaration of Independence
can be seen as you proceed further
when you go to Part III of the
Constitution that provides the
fundamental rights. If you divide them,
a little discerning eye on the
fundamental rights would show that
articles from beginning up to 21 are
articles governing the individuals and
onwards from 22 to the end are articles
which give collective rights to the
citizens of this country. When I view
these articles and particularly the
Fundamental Rights up to 21, I see the
generosity, the magnanimity, the broad
mindedness of the constitution-makers
in two articles - articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution; whereas the other articles
talk specifically about the rights of the
citizens of free India. Articles 14 and 21
begin with the words "no person" they
are, therefore, not confined to citizens
of this country; even foreigners are
entitled to those rights. That is why I
say that the constitution-makers had a
very broad perspective before them.
Since today's talk is confined
more or less to article 21, having given
a broad perspective, I will come now to
what went into the framing of this
article; how it changed complexion
from time to time due to the discussion
in the Constituent Assembly; how
ultimately it came to be framed as it is
in bold print in the Constitution; and
h o w i t a p p e a r s i n a c t u a l
implementation.
These are the facts which
perhaps I will be dealing with but, as I
said, the Constitution was not prepared
in a vacuum and, therefore, when we try
to understand it, we must not lose sight
JUDICIALLY DERIVED RIGHTS AS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
of the backdrop in wahich it came to be
framed. Article 14 says no person shall
be denied equality, no discrimination
shall be allowed on the grounds of
community, religion, sex etc. The
context of equality in the Preamble,
which is the soul of the Constitution,
when translated into article 14, we mark
the breadth of the concept of equality
which also came from the Russian
backdrop. And then we come by the
element of fraternity which reflects the
French Revolution and talks of national
integrity etc.
Article 21 has an interesting
background. The first draft for that
article was prepared by Kanhaiya Lai
Munshi who had clubbed life and liberty
with property. In the concept of liberty
the emphasis was placed on the
American Constitution- the American
concept of the ownership of property.
These two, life and liberty as well as
property, were for that reason put
together. There was a serious debate
whether, in the context of the Indian
scenario, it would be right to put both
these together. After the debate Kanhaiya
Lai Munshi himself broke it up into two
parts: right to life and liberty on one side
and property rights on the other. Then
followed an interesting debate whether
article 21 should contain 'the due process'
clause of the American Constitution.
Kanhaiya Lai Munshi had added this
phrase 'the due process'. There was a very
serious debate on this. The Constituent
Assembly was virtually divided on this
issue. There were strong views on either
side. In this regard, Dr. Ambedkar, who
had been processing various articles of
the draft Constitution in the Constituent
Assembly, made a very interesting
observation and I quote him:
The question of 'due process'
raises in my judgment question of the
relationship between the legislature and
the judiciary. In a federal constitution it is
always open to the judiciary to decide
whether any particular law passed by the
legislature is ultra vires or intra vires in
reference to the powers of legislation
which are granted by the constitution to
the particular legislature. If the law made
by a particular legislature exceeds the
power given to it by the constitution,
such law would be ultra vires and invalid.
The due process clause, in my
judgement, would give the judiciary
power to question the law made by the
legislature (on other principles) relating
to the rights of the individuals. In other
words, the judiciary would be in doubt
about the authority to question the law
not merely on the ground whether it was
in access of the authority of the
legislature but also on the ground
whether the law was a good law, apart
from the question of the power of the
legislature making the law.
Dr. Ambedkar was, therefore, not
prepared to say, at that point of time, that
the judiciary should have the power of
judicial review uninhibited. He said the
judiciary can strike down a law if it is
beyond the competence of legislature
meaning thereby, in the present context
of the Constitution if a state enacts a law
which is under List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, falling
within the scope of Parliament, that law
would be declared as invalid by the
judiciary. But there was a question
whether the judiciary should be allowed
to go a step further and say that this law is
ultra vires. He was in two minds at that
point of time and this becomes clear if I
quote a further statement made by him in
the Constituent Assembly. And he said:
We are, therefore, placed in two
difficult positions. One is to give the
judiciary the authority to sit in judgement
over the will of the legislature and to
question the law made by the legislature
on the ground that it is not a good law in
cons onance wi t h f undament al
principles. Is that a desirable principle?
The second position is that the legislature
ought to be trusted not to make bad laws.
It is very difficult to come to any definite
conclusion. There are dangers on both
sides for my self. I cannot altogether omit
the possibility of a legislature backed by
party men making laws, which may
abrogate, violate, what we regard as
certain fundamental principles affecting
the life and liberty of an individual. At the
same time I do not see how five or six
gentlemen, [I would add on my part also
not only men but ladies] sitting in the
Federal or Supreme Court examining
laws made by the legislature and by dint
of their own individual consciousness for
their bias or their prejudices, be trusted to
determine which law is good and which
law is bad. It is rather a case where one
has to see between two situations, as I
mentioned. And I therefore would not
say anything. I would leave it to the
House to decide one way or the other.
This is what Dr. Ambedkar said at
that point of time. The House was most
vertically divided. Dr. Ambedkar said
that he was not in a poisition to make up
his mind. Thus the debate turned into an
exhilarating intellectual exercise. Even
today it gives me pleasure to read that
debate. How then was this solved? Two
situations developed. One was the draft
prepared by Kanhaiya Lai Munshi which
carried the phrase 'due process of law'.
This, as we understand the;.context of the
American Constitution, would have
given the judliciary fairly wide powers of
judicial review to strike down laws, not
only because they were not consistent
with the fundamental rights conferred on
the people. This stalemate situation had
to be resolved.
Dr. B. N. Rao, therefore, went to
the United States to study the impact of
the phrase 'the due process of law'. In the
course of his interaction with various
jurists and judges in the United States, he
had a discussion with a very leading and
eminent jurist-cum-judge, Justice
Frankfurt. Justice Frankfurt advised him
against 'the due process' clause on the
ground that it would flood your courts
with litigations. That was the experience
in the United States. B. N. Rao came back
and had interaction with Dr. Ambedkar
and his other colleagues and ultimately
the words 'due process' came to be
substituted by the words that you find
today in article 21 of the Constitution,
namely, 'in accordance with procedure
established by law'. Very many questions
shot up soon thereafter because article
21, as it is on the statute book in the
Constitution today, reads that "no person
shall be deprived of his life or liberty
except in accordance with the procedure
established by law".
We have thus seen the background
of article 21. Now we have to consider
what is the complexion of article 21 as it
stands and as it is understood today in
judicial parlance and in legal practice.
The existing version takes the flavour of
'except in accordance with procedure
established by law'; but, does it take the
flavour of 'due process' also? A strong
case was being made out time and again
that words 'except in accordance with
procedure established by law' would
give the government the power to enact
a procedure and thereafter take away
the liberty and life of the individual. Is
that what a civilised society would like
to tolerate? Up to a certain point of time
the Supreme Court also went by the
letter of the law, and once there was a
procedure established by law that was
considered to be sufficient. This had, to
a certain extent, the flavour of the
English jurisprudencethe English legal
system, namely the Parliament, that can
enact a law no matter whether it falls
within the scope of List I or List III of
the Constitution and that is the end of
the matter.
Parliament is supreme in
England; it used to be said that
Parliament can make a women a man
a nd a ma n a woma n; [ but ]
parliamentarians have shown the
wisdom not to do that. Often the
question arises, whether you can trust
every one, every parliamentarian or
every Parliament which has sometimes
a brute majority, to act in such a
responsible manner. That would be
taking an off chance and so there came
situations, which developed from 1950
onwards almost to 1970's, which stirred
the conscience of the judiciary, and in
India in particular, the conscience of the
Supreme Court of India and, therefore,
the first step that began was to say that
the procedure which is conceived of
under article 21 cannot be an arbitrary
procedure. That was the first in road
which was made through the process of
interpretation. Thus, through the
process of nterpretation it was
established that the procedure has to be
fair and reasonable and not arbitrary;
and that was on the premise that
anything that is arbitrary violates the
equality clause of article 14 of the
Constitution. So you read equality
clause in article 21 because these two
articles, as I say, stand out as conferring
power, conferring rights, on every
individual, no matter whether he is a
citizen of India or he is not a citizen of
India. So, reading article 14 in article
21, the judiciary says that the procedure
established by law must be fair and
reasonable, meaning thereby rational
and not wholly arbitrary.
This was the first journey in the
direction of article 21..... If the process
is found to be arbitrary the court would
strike it down. And that is where we
entered into the first phase of
broadening the horizon of article 21.
But then the question arose could you
tolerate a law which takes away or
abrogates the fundamental rights? So,
to what pedestal do you put the
fundamental rights and to what
pedestal you put the Parliament or the
legislature to enact a law within the
compas s of t hei r r es pect i ve
jurisdictions? Now supposing a law is
framed by Parliament within its law
making authority, can the court
interfere with that law? The old concept
the strict interpretation of this concept
was known. That's that, but then it
reduces the fundamental rights to a
secondary position and judges were not
prepared to allow the citizenry to be
A lecture delivered by former chief justice Honble Mr. A. M. Ahmadi on September 14,2003 at India International centre, New Delhi.
.............Contd. to page 4
atoe +rrz ) s ze)) lykes oru
3 AZAD MINDS
2011 Civil Services Exam: Meet the Toppers
Call it the triumph of girl power
if you will. The top two ranks in the
2011 civil services examination have
been secured by women. And they
have diverse backgrounds. While the
first one is a law graduate from a
middle-class family, the second is the
daughter of an IAS officer who is also
married to one.
The topper's list also has
engineers and doctors who shared the
common passion for cracking what is
arguably the toughest entrance exam
in the country.
1st S. Divyadarshini
The Chennai law graduate,
who took the
e x a m a f t e r
enrolling in the
high court, aced
it in her second
attempt. "The
feeling is yet to
sink in.... I want
t o wor k f or
society and fight
corruption," the
daughter of a tax
consultant said
from her modest
apart ment i n
Chennai's Nungambakkam.
The middle-class girl, who
completed her law honours degree
from Chennai's reputed School of
Excellence in Law, under Dr
Ambedkar Law University, said her
family was overjoyed at her success.
She had joined the State Bank of India
as an assistant after completing her
LLB.
2nd Swetha Mohanty
This techie from Hyderabad has
followed in her
father's footsteps.
Swetha, who is a
B T e c h i n
C o m p u t e
Sc i e nc e s a nd
I n f o r ma t i o n
Technology from
G o k a r a j
R a n g a r a j u
I n s t i t u t e o f
Engineering and
T e c h n o l o g y
under Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University in
Hyderabad, is the daughter of P.K.
Mohanty, a 1979-batch IAS officer of
the Andhra Pradesh cadre. Swetha
bagged the rank in her third attempt.
She had qualified for the IRS
earlier, and is now posted in Siliguri as
an assistant commissioner in the
Cus t oms a nd c e nt r a l e xc i s e
department. Her husband is also an IAS
officer. He belongs to the West Bengal
cadre. Her father is currently the joint
secretary and mission director of the
JNNURM, on deputation to the central
government.
3rd R.V. Varun Kumar
This Bachelor in Dental Surgery
also took his civil services exams from
C h e n n a i . Or i g i n a l l y f r o m
Tiruchirapalli, the son of a doctor was
candid enough to admit that he hadn't
excelled i studies. But he believed the
strong foundation the Campion School
had provided in his home-town, stood
him in good stead for the exams. He
sought to travel on a path different from
his father. Instead of starting his private
p r a c t i c e , h e
aspired to be an
IAS officer.
Incidentall
y, Varun Kumar
attended a free
coaching centre
for IAS aspirants
that is run by
AIADMK leader
S a i d a i S .
Duraisamy, who
contested against
the DMK's M.K.
Stalin from Kolathur assembly
constituency in the recent elections.
4th Abhiram G. Shankar
This engineering graduate from
A t t i n g a l i n
Kerala always
wanted to be an
I AS o f f i c e r .
T h e r e f o r e ,
i mme d i a t e l y
a f t e r h i s
bachel or ' s i n
C o m p u t e r
Sci ence f r om
K o l l a m i n
K e r a l a , h e
enrol l ed i n a
coaching centre
for IAS aspirants
in Chennai. And he aced the
examination in his very first attempt.
For that, he thanked his father, a bank
official, and mother, a housewife. He
also had a lot of praise for his
neighbourhood Central School, back
home, which he believes is responsible
for making him the person he is today.
21st Aditya Dahiya
This medical graduate seems set
to effortlessly step out from the hospital
ward to the bureaucrat's office.
Securing the
21st rank in the
2 0 1 1 c i v i l
s e r v i c e s
exami nat i on,
t h i s d o c t o r
from the All
India Institute
o f Me d i c a l
S c i e n c e s
(AIIMS) has
topped the civil
services list in
Delhi. And he
did it in his first
attempt. But
topping entrance exams is nothing
new for this 23-year-old. Aditya had
topped the All India Pre-Medical Test,
conducted by the CBSE, in 2005.
This serious and sincere person
from Sonepat credits his success to his
par ent s , t eacher s and God.
Incidentally, his parents Ajit and
Vimla are also doctors. The junior
resident doctor in neuro-radiology at
AIIMS said: "My hard work has paid
off. There are no shortcuts to success.
One has to be determined. I had an
inclination towards civil services so I
decided to go for it." But he insisted
that his patients were always his first
priority in hospital. "I have never let
my patients suffer because of my
passion," he said.
Switching over from medicine
to administration gives Aditya
stimulation though he has not yet
started thinking of flaws in the system
he wants to rectify. "First I need to
understand how the system works.
There are flaws in all systems but
there is always a way to correct them.
The only thing that is needed is to
explore it," he said.
New Delhi: Jamia Millia
Islamia is pleased to announce that
three of its students and one guest
teacher have successfully cleared the
Civil Services Examinations 2010.
They are:
1) *Mr. Saurav Kumar Suman*
Ph. D. ( Geogr aphy) Geogr aphy
Department
All India Ranking 56
2) *Mr. Jusuf Kabir Ansari *
M.A. in Conflict Analysis & Peace
Building Nelson Mandela Centre for
Pe a c e & Conf l i c t Re s ol ut i on
All India Ranking - 740
3) *Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Wani*
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Faculty of Law
All India Ranking - 341
4) *Mr. Rai Mahimapat Ray*
Guest Faculty, Department of
Political Science
All India Ranking - 77
Mr. Jusuf Kabir Ansari, in his
telephonic conversation thanked Mr.
Najeeb Jung (IAS), Vice-Chancellor,
Jamia Millia Islamia for playing an
important role when he was preparing
for his final interview for the Civil
Services Examinations 2010.
He s ai d t hat t he Vi ce
Chancellor had paid keen interest
while he was preparing for his
interview and had even conducted
mock interviews with the students.
Four from Jamia Millia Islamia clear
UPSC Civil Services Exam
The Civil Services Examination
is the most important and prestigious
exami nat i on amongst var i ous
examinations conducted by the UPSC.
It attracts the largest number of
candidates from the entire length and
breadth of the country. The selected
candidates are appointed to the higher
Civil Services of the country.
For the 2010 examination, a total
of 5,47,698 candidates had applied for
this examination and 2,69,036
candi dat es appear ed f or t he
Preliminary examination, which was
conducted on May 23, 2010.
Of them, 12,491 candidates
qualified for the Main written
exami nat i on hel d i n Oct ober-
November, 2010.
As many as 2589 candidates
were short listed for the Personality
Test conducted in March-April, 2011.
Finally, 920 candidates (717
men and 203 women) have been
recommended for appointment to the
IAS, IFS, IPS and other Central
Services.
J a mi a Mi l l i a I s l a mi a
congratulates the students and the guest
faculty member on their stupendous
achievement and wishes them the very
best in all their future endeavours.
- ( ii- si rn r-i
~i: a ii - i( ii a a | | i- | ril
r+ - a a | rnii- r i ii -a
a : | n ( i z ac - (|a- ( - ) | l | ril
~i | n i n i| | li il -| - il
a ii s ( |+ i ~i: aa | | - ac i - ii
in i( ~ si r~i+ : ~ i ( (
il r( ~i:aa | ii ( i| a | -
n r i- i ril | r+ n i r-i
i l i n | ~i( | il i(- - iln
~ | ~ r - ~i - i(| -n ~ | l
- i l l i-i ( |- ~r-( l(r (
| i l- n - | l | ii - ni i | r+
l l- ~|n -l-- ( | ( si
r( |a ( (il a|aa | ll(
ii i- | |+ l( | - i( ril - -
rnii-r-i ii ~i ( (il r(
- i i- ii li
:|lln l(iin i(ir ~i -a
ii - (nii r l ( (il r(
a-aa (|a - (-- :|lln) |
ln| in (i( ~-li -aa
-- :|lln | ln| in |+ ri
ri l (il r( n lnl-n ll(
l( |ii - ni ~ln
l((l(ni ni( i (ii r+ (il r(
aa -| il i--| l(iin
( i ia ( i(( r(
r+a-aa ln i |aa ~(
~| |li iln i(-| l(i
i li((| i(ii ( :-|
:|lln l(iin ~i i
-ilr(~ir ~i:aaa ( l(ri l
l( -|i | |ii - i-i( sii i
(ii: (| r+
~-l( |li iln -|
rii ll( l( |li l( ~i
(ln l( za ( | lrn| i-|
(i |ii a i: za i ~iiln |
in|+ n iln l(ii ~~
a|aa-|a ~i -lri ~ilii
l r+
-| i - i
li((| i(ii (nii l (i |ii
~-l( ~|n (ni i|i iini
i+ ~i ~|n (-- -|) - ~iiln
| in|+ ri ri l zr ( i:
i| -in ili ii : (i |ii l
~i(( ni r+ i i(ii
(nii l ll( ~i (ln l( l
ll( l( |li l( ~i (ln
l( | (i |ii
iii-i zr ~i zc i: i rini ( l
|li l( l z/zs i: i
rini+ ri ri l ll( |li ~i
(ln l( | iln l |ii i
~i(l-( -i: ~i -~-|l (i: i
--| ~iiiln rini+
ia i(ii ri l ~i((
|li iln -| ii
in l i n r ~i(i ((i:-
www.rcaamu.com i
www.amu .ac .in /rcahtm. nri l i
n r+ ~i(( i i
|li iln -| ii - zr
za ( ~( -i l( i+
atoe +rrz ) s ze)) lykes oru
4
placed in a situation where even a law
whi ch off ends or vi ol at es a
fundamental right has to be tolerated.
Therefore, slowly and gradually
judicial minds and judicial conscience
began to seriously debate this issue.
Now the American Constitution having
used the expression of due process, as
you all know right from Chief Justice
Marshal's time down the line, a
struggle arose, and some times a very
bitter struggle as during President
Jefferson's time and Roosevelt's timea
very bitter struggle between the
judiciary on the one hand and the
executive and the legislature on the
other. Even before Chief Justice
Marshal's decision in Melbourne
Paddington case, there was thinking
that the judicial power cannot be
cancelled and capsuled but there were,
as I say, historical factors and in those
days we had the Magna Carta.
T h e w o r k i n g o f t h e
parliamentary system and democracy
in England and new democracies was,
therefore, a little slow in moving in a
direction other than what was then
prevalent at that point of time, I am glad
that with the passage of time, and
particularly after the 1970's, the
Supreme Court of India did not get
bogged down by the baggage it was
carrying of the past We all know that a
constitution is not a temporary
document. It is by and large a
document, which serves the people for
centuries to come. The American
Constitution has only a few very
precise short sentences conferring
rights. Ours is a very elaborate
document At one point of time it was
considered the longest constitution of
the world until Yugoslavia showed the
temerity of exceeding the length of our
Constitution. But it is not the length of
the Constitution that matters. What
really matters is the quality of rights
conferred by the Constitution on its
citizenry and even non-citizens as I
said, and that is of great importance.
As society develops, the law
must develop. Law cannot live in the
past. It has to live in the present and
also look to the future. That is why I
always believe that the passage of law,
the development of law is 'status quo,
change, status quo, change' and so on
and so forth. Because there are no frog
leaps which one can take in the
evolution of the constitutional law in
particular, and even other laws,
because that is likely to create ripples in
the society, disturbance in the society,
which the society could not endure and
as a result there may be avoidable
turmoil and difficulties. Therefore, it is
always that law is at certain times static
then changes, then that change
becomes static and then further change
and so forth. In, as you all know
Keshvananda-bharti' s case, the
Supreme Court took an extremely bold
step. Of course there are several
judgments, running into a few hundred
pages, of Keshvanandabbartis case and
I do not know if every one in the legal
field had been able to read through and
digest those judgments. But the crux is
that the Supreme Court said that the
power to amend the Constitution
conferred by article 368 is also limited
in the sense that you cannot interfere
with the basic feature of the
Constitution. And in Bommai case the
Honourable Supreme Court, with one
voice, said that the secularism is one of
the basic features of the Constitution.
But coming back to article 21,
now look to what is known as a
kashmakash over even broader
pr ocedur e meani ng r easonabl e
procedure established by law or due
process. Due process had conferred on
the judiciary inherent power of judicial
review and power to strike down laws
which are not consistent with the
fundamental rights enshrined in the
Constitution. There came a time when
judiciary, despite the historical
background of a conscious decision
taken by the Constituent Assembly not to
include the due process clause through an
interpretative process, took a course in
favour of it, and I am not going to
package it differently. I'll be quite clear
on this. The judiciary through the process
of interpretation introduced the due
process clause and it is fairly clear now
that the due process clause has virtually
found its place in article 21 through the
interpretative process adopted by the
Supreme Court and other courts of the
country. The high courts also are
following those judgments. So today I
have no doubt in my mind that article 21,
when it uses the words "except in
accordance with procedure established
by law", means the due process clause.
Let's not beat about the bush. Certainly
the Constituent Assembly after a debate
avoided using the due process clause in
article 21. Times have changed. Citizens'
rights had to be safe-guarded because
that was one of the essential elements of
the functioning of the judiciary of the
countryto protect and safeguard
f u n d a me n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e
citizensotherwise what happened during
Emergency can happen again.
Fundamental rights will be
subjected to being frozen up to a certain
point of time or whatever the extent of
time; the executive wants it to be frozen.
Tha t i s t he r e a s on why t hi s
consciousness of the judiciary was not
prepared to allow that to happen to its
citizens, to deny them the fundamental
rights. So fundamental rights ultimately
received the prima facie importance
which they really deserved and the
interpretation of article 21 was expanded
and the court as the guardian of the
Constitution and the fundamental rights
of citizens considered it its solemn duty
not to allow the dilution of the
fundamental rights; not to allow the
abrogation of the fundamental rights; not
to subject the citizens to a situation where
they would have no remedy if their
fundamental rights were in any manner
subjected to restrictions beyond those
which are permitted by the Constitution
itself. In various spheres, therefore, the
courts intervened from time to time.
The other day when I was
delivering a memorial lecture in
Hyderabad on a very interesting subject
the Interplay of Relation Between the
Bar and the Bench and the Media', I
mentioned that even though the
Constitution makers had before them the
Constitution of the United States, which
said that the Congress shall enact no law
which abrogates the freedom of speech
and expression and the freedom of the
press. In cur Constitution, article 19(1)
(a), while it talks of the freedom of
speech and expression, it does not
elongate it to the freedom of the press or
the media, because it is much wider with
electronic media coming into the field
and playing a very pronounced role.
While speaking on that occasion I had
mentioned that it was the Supreme Court
of India, which gave the press what it
enjoys today. By an interpretative
process, it extended it to the freedom of
the press and the media also. And time
and again the Supreme Court intervened
when the press was sought to be
c o n t r o l l e d , b y t a k i n g a wa y
advertisements or by restricting the
availability of paper etc. etc., saying that
these are matters where reasonable
restrictions can be placed, but the
Supreme Court said no. So time and
again the Supreme Court has intervened
in various spheres and when it comes to
the question of right to life and liberty it
has perhaps played a very significant role
to ensure that the rights and liberty of
individuals are in no way jeopardised.
Now I move a little to the directive
principles. If you see the directive
principles you find, by and large, that
they were intended to be the road signs in
which the state would move and the
development would take place. These
road signs had some distances to cross
and the terrain, which it had to cross, was
a difficult oneright to education for
example. Because of constraints of
finance the requirement of tree and
compulsory education to the age of 14,
for which 10 year time was fixed, did not
take place tiil the Supreme Court
intervened. And because of article 37 of
the Constitution which says that the
directive principles are not justifiable by
a court of law, the Supreme Court had to
find ways and means to ensure that these
developments took place and to ensure
that the executive and the legislature
woke up from slumber.
How does it do it? It is a judicial
discipline, and within the judicial
discipline, if you can enforce that which
our Constitution-makers had thought
appropriate to enforce within a certain
period of time. I think the court should
not hesitate. And it did not hesitate. In the
matter of education it read the principle
into fundamental right under article 21.
How does it do it? And that is where the
question arises when one talks of the
right to life. I put liberty a little away for
the time being. Right to life and this is
where the interesting question that
arises: what do you mean by the word
life? Does it mean mere vegetable
existence till you breathe your right to
life is safeguarded, or does it mean more
than that? And this is where once again
the judicial minds began to think that if
life is restricted to mere vegetable
existence, mere breathing, then this
article has no meaning because then it
only operates where somebody is sent to
the gallows. And that they can do in
accordance with due process, in
accordance with procedure establish by
law. So came a stage when the court
began to think what is the dimension of
the expression 'life'. One thing was very
clear, it did not mean mere vegetable
existence. So came the question: what
are the inputs in deciding that this falls
within the concept of 'life'? And those
inputs came in gradually. The court said
that life does not mean mere vegetable
existence; it said it means all that which
goes into the quality and enjoyment of
life. Therefore, the emphasis shifted to
quality of life. And it is in the context of
that emphasis that the courts interpret,
time and again, life to mean various
things, various inputs which make living
worth and not merely vegetable
existence.
So, education was considered an
essential element of intellectual
development which is a part of life.
Because life without intellectual
development means a bit different. So
intellectual development had to be an
element of life although article 37 does
not permit that because it does not make
the directive principles justifiable. We
read the right to education as a
component of right to life as now the
constraint of finance is over. What is
unfortunately happening is that people
have not bothered. Even after expiry of
10 or 40 years the state has not bothered
to provide education to its children and,
therefore, the Supreme Court said that
the right to education is an element of
the right to lifewe read it into this article
21 and directed its enforcement.
Today the right to education is
judicially recognised as an element of
fundamental rights; article 21 has
become a reality and free education,
though not still ' compulsory, is
provided. But I am looking to the day
when the element of compulsory
education is also enforced because free
education is only available to those
who know that or who are alive to the
fact that free education is provided and
go to seek free education. It is not
available to those who are totally
ignorant about it. And in our country
there is a vast mass of people who do
not know their rights. You are now
aware that many things have taken
place under article 21. The court vision
of article 21 has broadened from time to
time. Environmental matters have been
dealt with under article 21. We rarely
notice the damage caused by as to the
environment, the ozone etc. these are
the matters which had to be dealt with
by courts.
I do not want to go on
enumerating the various spheres which
the Supreme Court and the high courts
have tried to expand and implement the
fundamental rights, particularly the
right to life and liberty, and I do hope
that in times to come there will be
further expansion so that we have the
benefit of living in a society which is
not a controlled society. Because, of
late, what we see is the dilution of rights
through factors other than law. By
creating an atmosphere of insecurity, a
dilution of rights is taking place
because not many have the courage to
stand up to it and insist on their
fundamental right. I do understand their
difficulties but if citizens do not fight
for their fundamental rightsand,
remember one thing, it is essentially
first the citizens who come into the
picture. It is the citizens who bring it to
the court, otherwise the court may not
have the opportunity of safeguarding
and expanding that right. Many of the
rights have been expanded from time to
time, and particularly the article 21,
which has become possible for court to
expand because essentially an
enlightened citizen, a feadess citizen,
has taken the courage to move the court
against the executive. Mind you, in
most of the cases it is citizen vs the state
and, therefore, it is the citizen who is
fighting the mighty state. When the
state does not enforce the fundamental
right, then only the citizen goes to
court. It is the fundamental duty of the
state to enforce the fundamental rights
of citizens. If it performs that
fundamental duty the citizen need not
knock at the doors of the court.
Therefore, the first credit goes to the
citizen and it is only the second credit,
which goes to the court, the Supreme
Court or the high courts. So, this is what
I encapsulated within the time
permissible to me and I do hope, I may
have cleared some of the cobwebs,
which may exist in some minds.
Thank you.
JUDICIALLY DERIVED RIGHTS AS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS........Contd. from page 2