I may find you the same instances from any democratic countries of the world, but then your idea of democracies is apparently construed by Stalinist Soviet Union. What are you going to throw at me now? Some quote from the apartheid-era South Africa? Or some ‘glorious’ example of political sovereignty of the state coming from the Kingdoms of the Middle East?
by Avinash Pandey Samar
(September 19, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Seldom do the self-designated ‘intellectuals’ expose themselves as comprehensively as you have done in your last post Mr Dayan. Accept my congratulations for making such a spectacular show of stupidity while absconding from the main issues.
First thing first, let me give you the evidence for the ‘political sovereignty lies with the people’ principle from a different country as you do not consider the ‘Indian supreme court an authority on political theory and philosophy’.
So forget India for a moment, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, among others, has held this principle time and again. Have you ever heard of the Chisholm v. Georgia case of 1973,(External Link), in the Supreme Court of U.S.A? The court had held that sovereignty vests in the people. The court, then, had ABROGATED the sovereign immunity of the State while granting the federal courts with the power of hearing disputes between citizens and the state. Do you understand the meaning of that Mr. Dayan? Do you get who is the ultimate sovereign then?
You would do well to know that the principle was reaffirmed again in a later development in the 1972 amendment of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court, then had ruled against the sovereign immunity of the state again and allowed the citizens to sue the state even for money damages, leave aside bigger felonies states can engage in. You can have a look (as reading is, apparently, too tough an exercise for you) on this link. ( External Link )
Moving on to Indian experience, a full bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of 13 judges, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973 AIR 1461, 1973Suppl.SCR 1, 1973( 4 )SCC 225,) had made it absolutely clear that ‘that Parliament's constituent power was subject to inherent limitations’ and that it could not use its amending powers under Article 368 to 'damage', 'emasculate', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the 'basic structure' or the framework of the Constitution. All these were the words used by the Bench in the judgment(you can read the full judgment here in the most unlikely case you want to- External Link). And as that being impossibility for someone of your intellectual standards here is the quote
“Where there is a written Constitution which adopts the preamble of sovereignty in the people there is firstly no question of the law-making body being a sovereign body for that body possesses only those powers which are conferred on it. Secondly, however representative it may be, it cannot be equated with the people. This is especially so where the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights for such a Bill imposes restraints on that body, i.e. it negates the equation of that body with the people.”(emphasis mine)
It does not only locates the sovereignty in the people, Mr Dayan but goes further to assert that there is ‘no question of the law-making body being a sovereign body’. Does that make any sense to you? I may find you the same instances from any democratic countries of the world, but then your idea of democracies is apparently construed by Stalinist Soviet Union. What are you going to throw at me now? Some quote from the apartheid-era South Africa? Or some ‘glorious’ example of political sovereignty of the state coming from the Kingdoms of the Middle East?
Anyways, have a look at the following quote as well. It will help you educating you a little more on the issue.
“692. When a power to amend the Constitution is given to the people, its contents can be construed to be larger than when that power is given to a body constituted under that Constitution.
…Therefore the contention on behalf of the Union and the States that the two-thirds of the members in the two Houses of Parliament are always authorised to speak on behalf of the entire people of this country is unacceptable.”
But then, arguing is possible only with someone who has some ears to listen and some brains to employ. An intellectual who has sold the brains out to the state, for whatever favours, is capable only of what you are doing best.
P.S. Have you also done some research in using foul language or that comes naturally to you?
Avinash Pandey Samar is a Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He can be contacted at samaranarya@gmail.com.
Please refer to previous article: One Big ‘Lie’: Last Post on Pandey
Post a Comment