|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

SC cannot suspend laws unless prima facie they are unconstitutional, experts say | India News


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court cannot suspend parliamentary laws unless it is satisfied prima facie that they are unconstitutional and illegal, legal experts said Monday.
They largely concurred with the views of attorney general KK Venugopal, who on Monday opposed the high court’s observation on the suspension of implementation of the controversial farm laws.
Venugopal said that such an order can only be passed when there are prima facie materials showing that they violated the fundamental rights of citizens or constitutional schemes and were cultivated without the legislative competence of Parliament.
The Chief Justice, SA Bobde, observed during Monday’s hearing that it is necessary to appoint a committee to resolve the impasse between the Center and the farmers and said: “Keeping the laws in place and keeping the law are different. We can always keep executive action under law. ”
Lead attorney and constitutional law expert Rakesh Dwivedi said that parliamentary laws cannot be suspended unless there is a very strong basis to argue from the outset that it is prima facie unconstitutional.
“This is a very difficult task, without listening to the government, one jumps the gun. A large number of farmers are waving can not be a reason for the court to suspend the laws. It is only in the wisdom of the legislators and it is beyond of the cutting domain, “Dwivedi told PTI.
“The courts cannot say that the people are agitating, so we will uphold the law. I agree with the attorney general that agricultural laws cannot be suspended unless they are constitutionally invalid,” he said.
However, chief lawyer Mohan Katarki said that the high court has the jurisdiction to suspend the operation of the Act of Parliament if it is convinced that prima facie Parliament lacks legislative competence.
Katariki said: “The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to suspend the operation of the Law of Parliament pending the final decision, if the Supreme Court considers that prima facie Parliament lacks legislative competence to enact the Law and the Law is incompatible with any Constitutional provision and balance of convenience are in favor of granting stay.
“When considering the balance of convenience, the Supreme Court can take into account the prolonged and peaceful protests of farmers biting the cold.”
Dwivedi also said that by hinting that farm laws will be upheld, the higher court acts more like an administrator than a court.
“The Supreme Court can suspend the law. But I do not agree with the judges that they would stay and constitute a committee. They can do it, but it means that it is legal. It is illegal. It is only a way to get” out of the impasse. In doing so, you are acting more like an administrator than a Supreme Court. The real problem is that the central government can pass a law that bypasses state law, “he said.
However, the main defender Ajit Kumar Sinha said that the higher court observed that it can suspend the implementation of the agricultural laws and keep them on hold.
“It was more about implementation until the matter is resolved. That is a possibility. That they can do it because the negotiations are underway and the public interest is also involved. People have problems and threats,” Sinha said.
“Until the moment a consensus is reached and a committee is formed, until then it is not implemented. Therefore, it is sought that the implementation be suspended. Not the law as such. To keep it in abeyance for a public purpose and fruitful, they can. They have the power under article 142 to do full justice, “he said.
Supreme Court attorney Ashwani Kumar Dubey said the high court can suspend the enforcement of agricultural laws as it has in the Maratha reserve case.

Times of India