Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[Krate M]

Well a new constitution where these tenets are conserved can be adopted. Again this is just technical.

 

[Bang Galore]

A party with 2/3 majority in one house and simple majority in another could simple sack Judges at will until it gets Judges that it want in Supreme court.

Practically, any part of constitution could be changed, if you have enough numbers.


Note: I am not of opinion that Parliament should have draconian rights.

In theory. In reality, the SC would simply declare any such sacking uncontitutional . There isn't a government that will want to get into open confrontation with the Supreme Court.

 

[Bang Galore]

I am talking about practice, not theory.

A Government with 2/3 majority in one house and 50% in another would simply bring impeachment motion en-mass on some trumped up charges ( impeachment motion has been brought for buying furniture by Government money ) against hostile Judges, and sack them.What would SC do? All levers of power are controlled by executive or legislature.SC judges, even if they declare impeachment proceedings unconstitutional, would be replaced by those who would declare them constitutional ( technically, they would be right ) upon assuming office.

And wariness of confrontation goes both way. Government may not want open confrontation with Supreme court but Supreme court also does not want open confrontation with a strong government. Various landmark cases related to Fundamental rights are testament to that. SC has always tactically backed down and bided it's time whenever a strong government was at center.


Also i am arguing for a extreme but plausiable hypothetical, not something which normally occurs.

Not in any real world. The SC would simply declare any such procceding unconstitutional & the move would go nowhere. Your reading of the constitution is not the same as that of the SC. The SC is still the ultimate arbiter of any decision either of the executive or the legislature. The impeachment will hold only if the SC decides it is valid. If struck down, it has no meaning. Even the law for appointment of judges passed unanimously by the government is still open to SC review. Any impeachment procceding will have even less chamce to get off the ground.

In a fantastic scenario like that who knows what else one can conjure up?

My last post, as you have already pointed out this is in the realm of the extreme. No point furthering this argument.

 

[Parul]

यह भगौड़ा तो कुछ बोलेगा तो हम जैसे मोदी फैन के लिए चुटकला बन जाता है। और आपटार्ड को शोर डाला का बहाना मिला जाता है।

 

[Shango]

There are some fundamental rights which are so deeply rooted in basic definition of man in contrast to beast that they should not be changed.I have mention three rights in last post which in my opinion could not change, irrespective of any change in lifestyle in values.

That of Art20, which in simple term means that a person should not be prosecuted twice for same crime and could not be given more than maximum proscribed Punishment for a crime.

Art 21, which state that no-one, including state could kill you without a trail.

and

Art 32, which ensures that anyone could approach justice system if he has been wronged.

The whole thing is rather theoretical but most people do not realize there is NO RIGHT that is independent of the environment in which we live.

Rights are a product of Social/culture/Political Responsibilities and duties. Even fundamental rights like liberty, equality etc. is subject to the situation on the ground. All of these "fundamental rights" have only evolved in recent years of human history when sustaining life has become easy. When sustaining life become difficult, all these Rights will disappear.

We can only hope that overpopulation and environmental degradation will not push us over the edge. When it does, you can say good bye to "Rights" irrespective of what the SC says from its Ivory Tower.

 

[Ragnar]

The Supreme Court has held that the basic tenets of the constitution cannot be ammened by any act of parliament. Some parts of the constitution cannot be touched even if the whole of the paliament wanted to.

Is the "socialist" part of the preamble amendable, for example? And is the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what constitutes the basic structure?? For example, there is a the case of Judicial Appointments Commission, for instance, which is attacked for compromising judicial independence. What if the bill is eventually passed, but struck down by Supreme Court? There should be a balance of powers too, IMHO. Executive, judiciary and legislature should all balance each other.

 

[Parul]

Government had recently fixed 200 liters of fuel per vehicle and fixed an expenditure ceiling for an inaugural function at Rs 10,000.


m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delhi-government-imposes-ban-on-purchase-of-new-vehicles-for-officials/articleshow/45246584.cms

 

[Parul]

Renowned marketing guru Philip Kotler said he was 'high on Modi' and the Indian Prime Minister was like 'a breath of fresh air'.

m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/im-high-on-narendra-modi-says-marketing-guru-philip-kotler/articleshow/45240076.cms

 

[Juggernautjatt]

Guys, any ideas when the GoI will implement the Goods and services tax? Seriously waiting on this reform, within 18 months it will be adding 0.9-1.7% GDP growth a year alone!!

If Modi is serious about reforming the indian economy and easing the ability to do business in india then this has to happen ASAP. This current state of unproductively in goods and services needs to end.

According to FM Arun Jaitley it is almost ready. A constitutional amendment to introduce the goods & services tax could be moved in the winter session of Parliament, which begins on Monday. However, a consensus is still missing on the final GST tax rates and recommendations vary from 16 per cent to 27 per cent. The government will also need the consent of 50 per cent of states to implement GST by April 2016.

 

[TejasMk3]

DSGMC demands naming Aurangzeb Road after Guru Teg Bahadur's name - The Times of India

It should be done imo.

 

[Abingdonboy]

DSGMC demands naming Aurangzeb Road after Guru Teg Bahadur's name - The Times of India

It should be done imo.

I think renaming it to "Hind Di Chadar" would be nice,

 

[Parul]

I think renaming it to "Hind Di Chadar" would be nice,

Nothing is going to happen. Aurangzeb was/is Secular. If Road's name would be changed, it's going to be the direct attack on India's Secularism.

 

[Prometheus]

@Prometheus ye kya ho gaya?

congrats mate

 

[Abingdonboy]

Nothing is going to happen. Aurangzeb was/is Secular. If Road's name would be changed, it's going to be the direct attack on India's Secularism.

I'm not saying the name of the road should be changed anyway- it is what it is right now. Build a new road, name that one Guru Tegh Bahadur road, thus signaling progress. Fighting over the naming of current infrastructure is pettiness beyond belief. I was just saying IF a case is being made for Guru Tegh Bahadur road, I would much prefer "Hind Di Chadar" road- the connotations are just so much nicer.

 

[Parul]

I'm not saying the name of the road should be changed anyway- it is what it is right now. Build a new road, name that one Guru Tegh Bahadur road, thus signaling progress. Fighting over the naming of current infrastructure is pettiness beyond belief. I was just saying IF a case is being made for Guru Tegh Bahadur road, I would much prefer "Hind Di Chadar" road- the connotations are just so much nicer.

I'm not sure about the Road, it might already be there. However, I know a Colony and Metro Station is already named after Guru Teg Bahadur which is in North Delhi. Apparently, that's more than Enough for me.