* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

ON 'JALLIKATTU' AND OUR SC CASE





Apropos to my post, and some doubt that without the fabric in Sec.48, from where does LIC get powers to act. This is exactly the main theme of the argument in the Appeal. LIC is not a robot, life is breathed into it with its formation and it is person that can sue and sued. It has a head in the Board, a CEO to act and life and limb in the form of employees to work for it. It has inherent powers to act independently but it is not a man. Law says all men are not persons also.

This is not to belittle anybody else. So far you have not seen my arguments. Certainly without Sec.48, LIC can Act. Has not the Jaipur HC said there is no need for any approval from the Govt with which other HC’s also agree. Moreover, I have to again hide from public gaze of my fellow pensioners, the full arguments, in my anxiety to keep it with the case managers for consideration of our counsel on whom we have faith. Be that as it may, everything in a case, is an opinion including a judgement subject to review by a higher court. 

The SC has powers to review its own decisions. Decisions may change with times also and that is why law is called dynamic. A look at newspapers for the day is encouragingly supportive of the line of our arguments. Some extracts from today's editorial on Jallikattu in the Hindu: “The Centre will have to explain why it tried to get around a court verdict through a mere executive notification, when it is common knowledge that it can be done only through legislation that removes the basis for the judgement and not merely by tweaking some regulation”.

It is also reported the opinion of Legal Experts, on the suggestion to issue an ordinance, is that if promulgated “would be seen as the legislature usurping the judicial powers. Secondly the ordnance would go against the very essence of the SC judgement…”. They say that delegated legislations in the nature of ordinance have no validity if they violate the legislative intent of an existing statute on the same subject, passed by Parliament and reinforced by the Supreme Court in a judgement.

It is also reported that “in the Dr.D.C. Wadva Vs State of Bihar case, the Constitution Bench of the SC held that Executive has no arbitrary right to promulgate Ordinances. The apex Court held that it is the right of every citizen to insist that he should be governed by the laws made in accordance with the Constitution and not law made by the Executive in violation of the constitutional provisions”. “Promulgation of the Ordnance now would also be seen as defeating the very basis of the 2014 SC judgement…..”.

To remove doubts I may add Executive law, order, ordnance, notification, regulations etc. refer to a resolution of the Govt. such as the one issued in our case under Sec.48 of LIC Act.

Let us hope we will be suitably rewarded.