“Traditionally, England’s (unmodified) common law has evolved many safeguards gradually and over time to prevent abuse of state power.” Although some of these safeguards were added to criminal regulations enacted by the UK, many of them did not cite the Deputy Governor of Bangladesh in the 1800s, “India’s criminal law aims are different from that of the UK, not to ensure the freedom of the people, and for these reasons, are various “British biases” (e.g., against self-restriction) that require negation of “the””’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
However, we retain preventive detention in the Constitution. Today, we have a situation where the Supreme Court ruled in Vijay Madanlal Choudhry that Ed has the right to arrest without revealing the reason for the defendant’s arrest. The rationale for this dates back to the 1968 judgment in Romesh Chandra Mehta vs State of West Bengal in which the Supreme Court ruled that Mehta’s confession to the customs officer in a smuggling case was admitted as evidence on the ground that a customs officer is not a police officer (while confessions to police are inadmissible because they embody the State’s coercive power).
The federal system “imagines a heterogeneous and diverse federal structure, with different components of the federal government having different degrees and forms of power, autonomy and relationships with central authority.” Such a concept is to understand why treatment of Kashmir is possible when India signs a contract with Kashmir rulers. Even Article 371 has provisions for different treatments for nine states, including Gujarat, to maintain the special characteristics of these states. However, as time passed, verdicts such as Sampat Prakash with Jamu, Kashmir and MD IQBAL DAMNOO with Jamu and Kashmir gradually eliminated the heterogeneous concept of federalism.
Sampat Prakash and Damnoo are one of a group of government employees and teachers who were arrested in Kashmir’s Preventive Detention Act, which they challenged. At Sampat Prakash, the legality of the preventive detention law is maintained. In damn, the former Sada-i-riyasat, who was elected as the governor, has a position equivalent to that of the governor.
This groundbreaking work on the Constitution is about the choices made by the judiciary over the years and the choices that it interprets.
In many cases, such as West Bengal and India Alliance, the author shows us that if the judgment of a minority is majority, then “concentrated drift” supports the administrator and “integrate into homogeneity” may not be the flavor of the day. When tribal leader Jaipal Munda opposes the text of Schedule V when opposing the Constitution, he said: “The plan is not unified, but unified.”
Bhatia discusses independent non-elected bodies, such as the Election Commission and Commissioners under the RTI, and how they are weakened rather than strengthened, some of which are done through judicial decisions. He offers thought-provoking alternatives from new constitutional countries such as Kenya and South Africa. Related, when we participate in the general election in 2024, the Election Commissioner was elected by a three-person committee, two of whom were members of the political supervisor. Batia also talked about public participation in legislation.
This is the power needed to reimagine. This is not a new thing. All of these ideas have a wide variety of ideas in the alternative constitutional model. This is the “point of surrender” for our courts and political systems. It’s time to make better choices.
Nayantara Roy is a lawyer practicing in Delhi
Indian Constitution: A dialogue with power
Gautam Bhatia
HarperCollins
pp. 300; 599 rupees
