It is not right to equate the Constitution with the subjective perception about it (“Constitution’s will upheld,” Oct.20) . The four Judges, out of five, who gave this order also had their own reasons. The presiding judge had serious doubts about the collective intelligence of the civil society. The Constitution derives its strength from the democratic credentials and the power of suffrage. The axis of both these rests on the people of India. The article was partisan. The same logic of incompetency can be thrown at the ‘blunders’ committed by the presumed citadel of Justice in past.
Niraj Kumar,
New Delhi
One of the principles of natural justice is that no one shall be a judge in his own cause. Is this principle not violated when the Supreme Court Judges gave their judgement on the constitutional validity of the NJAC as they were deciding on an issue in which they were an affected party? Similar is the case when the Parliamentarians decide on issues relating to their on salaries and allowances. Some checks and balances are required in a democratic system and no one should have unbridled powers to decide on issues relating to themselves.
P. Venugopalan,
Malappuram, Kerala
The landmark judgment to strike down NJAC has validated our faith in the independence of judiciary. The higher courts have always kept Parliament in check, especially when they have tried to sneak laws past the “judicial review” part and hamper the structure of the Constitution (recalling the Kesavananda Bharati case). So saying that the courts have undone the people's will (NJAC judgement ignored basic structure of Constitution: Jaitley , Oct 19.) is somewhat untrue. With a high percent of “legal illiteracy”, are the people and Parliament mature enough to decide? I think both, the assertive judgement and the reason, comply with the structure of the Constitution.
Hanpreet Singh Dua,
Shahjahanpur (U.P.)
