We can interfere if speaker’s decision violates Parliament rules, says SC

We can interfere if speaker’s decision violates Parliament rules, says SC

Retired

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Posts
52,952
Reaction score
104,284
Huko ni India. Na hapa kwetu inawezekana.


We can interfere if speaker’s decision violates Parliament rules, says SC

The Supreme Court told the government on Monday that it can interfere with the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision if it violated the rules or procedures of Parliament

The Supreme Court told the government on Monday that it can interfere with the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision if it violated the rules or procedures of Parliament.

“If the speaker says blue is green, then we will ask the speaker to say it’s blue. We can’t let it go as green,” a bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar told attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, who had told the court that a speaker’s decision cannot be challenged in court.

Rohatgi was opposing Congress Rajya Sabha member Jairam Ramesh’s petition in which he challenged the speaker’s decision to certify the bill on Aadhaar as money bill.

Ramesh contended that the certification was done to avoid the bill’s scrutiny before the Rajya Sabha, which does not have a say on a money bill.

Pressing for judicial scrutiny, Ramesh’s lawyer, senior advocate and Congress colleague P Chidambaram told the bench that it was important to ascertain as to how the bill was passed as a money bill.

According to Chidambaram, there were serious objections raised to the original draft of the bill by the Rajya Sabha, following which amendments were made. The original bill, he said, was never pitched as a money bill, while the amended one was.

Rohatgi countered Chidambaram and said the legislation covered all mandatory requirements under the Constitution to be certified as a money bill as all expenditure on social welfare programmes connected with Aadhaar would be withdrawn from the consolidated fund.

The bench appeared to agree with Rohatgi and asked Chidambaram to look into all the objections the AG raised.
 
Yes, it depends with how "checks and balance" government system works there....

If the SC has the audacity to say this openly to oppose/challenge the ruling of the Speaker's (Parliament) decision, then, the checks and balance works properly there contrary to the situation of our country....

Here in Tanzania, the executive (president) has more power than the judiciary and the national assembly (parliament) ....

Do not expect these to happen in a country where the president appoints other heads of other organs i. e Judiciary & Parliament though literary you may not agree hence saying that, every organ is independent.....
 
Huko ni India. Na hapa kwetu inawezekana.


We can interfere if speaker’s decision violates Parliament rules, says SC

The Supreme Court told the government on Monday that it can interfere with the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision if it violated the rules or procedures of Parliament

The Supreme Court told the government on Monday that it can interfere with the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision if it violated the rules or procedures of Parliament.

“If the speaker says blue is green, then we will ask the speaker to say it’s blue. We can’t let it go as green,” a bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar told attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, who had told the court that a speaker’s decision cannot be challenged in court.

Rohatgi was opposing Congress Rajya Sabha member Jairam Ramesh’s petition in which he challenged the speaker’s decision to certify the bill on Aadhaar as money bill.

Ramesh contended that the certification was done to avoid the bill’s scrutiny before the Rajya Sabha, which does not have a say on a money bill.

Pressing for judicial scrutiny, Ramesh’s lawyer, senior advocate and Congress colleague P Chidambaram told the bench that it was important to ascertain as to how the bill was passed as a money bill.

According to Chidambaram, there were serious objections raised to the original draft of the bill by the Rajya Sabha, following which amendments were made. The original bill, he said, was never pitched as a money bill, while the amended one was.

Rohatgi countered Chidambaram and said the legislation covered all mandatory requirements under the Constitution to be certified as a money bill as all expenditure on social welfare programmes connected with Aadhaar would be withdrawn from the consolidated fund.

The bench appeared to agree with Rohatgi and asked Chidambaram to look into all the objections the AG raised.
Even here,it's possible.Only when the court reclaim it's rightful position.
 
Back
Top Bottom