Gautam Bhatia's 'argumentation' and 'slant': two observations

This piece is a response to points included in this piece attributed to Gautam Bhatia, dated 2019 Nov 18. This piece is neither a defense nor an endorsement of the subject of Dr. Bhatia's piece, the former chief justice of India (and any of his judgments, positions etc). It is limited to what I perceive as a flaw in Bhatia's argumentation and a call-out of what I see as one of his politico-legal slants.

Observation 1: NPWAPCG (no place where aggrieved people could go) argumentation

GB 3

Let us take Bhatia seriously, break his argument down, to see how it plays out:
  1. The court should not have taken over the Executive's task
  2. The Executive should have done the task
  3. and in that process, if the Executive violated rights
  4. the aggrieved could appeal to: the court!
In effect, Bhatia is taking the Supreme Court to task for its more direct involvement so that the same organisation—the Supreme Court—could have, later, been approached for grievances! If the Supreme Court (SC) is the final recourse for dealing with grievances, by that logic, shouldn't an earlier involvement of the SC shorten the path to justice, if deliverance of justice was really the concern? Note that I am not saying the Supreme Court of India has always ensured flawless justice. I am, however, critiquing the argumentation Bhatia deploys: (effectively) that SC should not be involved earlier in the life-cycle of the process because the same SC will not be available later!

Observation 2: POIRAPT (protection of individual rights as primary task) slant

GB 1

I would be most obliged to anyone who can show me where in the Constitution "protection of individual rights" has been clearly and unequivocally specified as the "PRIMARY TASK" of the judiciary?  My question should not be construed as me undermining the—in my view—extremely important task of "protection of individual rights". My question to Bhatia, actually to anybody, is about the constitutional validity of Bhatia's claim: "PRIMARY TASK". To be further clear, I am not asking to be pointed to either opinions or prior judgments of individual judges in the past. I am asking about the absolute constitutional validity of the suggestion that protection of individual rights is THE PRIMARY TASK of the judiciary and therefore takes precedence over everything else.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pratap Bhanu Mehta's point about 'demographic thinking': A response

Image
Source : https://youtu.be/jkIosz8cOeg?t=2236 At ~37:16 in this talk , Dr. Mehta can be heard saying the following: "...and the thing about this demographic thinking is completely self-fulfilling , this is not about an empirical argument , right, you can see how self-fulfilling its logic is, right?" [Emphasis mine] Since he does not specify either what his definition of self-fulfilling is or in what sense he is using it, let us consider a couple of dictionary meanings: "(of an opinion or prediction) bound to be proved correct or to come true as a result of behaviour caused by its being expressed"  https://cutt.ly/Itx5HqI   "becoming real or true by virtue of having been predicted or expected"  https://cutt.ly/xtx5Ktf     If the empiricism of 'demographic thinking' has been missed by him, for his convenience, let us first look at the data:  Empirical data : Source: 26 August 2015 LiveMint article titled: Census 2011 shows...
Read more

The first sentence taught in Sanskrit by the Chair of World Sanskrit Conference (2021)

The Chair of the World Sanskrit Conference (2021), Professor McComas Taylor, can be heard saying the following in this podcast  (between ~15:14 and ~16:00):  Audio source . Image source . "...the demon in the form of a deer. And this is a very very famous incident wherever you are, all the way throughout the Indic world you will see images of this golden deer passing by the hut. It is very famous image. So, the golden deer passes the hut. Sītā, of course, sees the deer. And do you know how in French, the first sentence you learn is, is  the pen of my aunt is on the table.  In Sanskrit, the first sentence I teach is सीता मिरगं इचति[1]. Sītā desires the deer. We always say that. We always start with it. Nice easy sentence. You can say this: सीता मिरगं इचति. Everyone please: सीता मिरगं इचति (laughter). Really g ood."     [1] It is my guess that what was intended was perhaps सीता मृगं इच्छति Quick points:  1. I could not find ...
Read more

Did Dec 6 2019 mark the first video-recorded (covert-ish) attempt to inject the word 'Liberal' into the Indian constitution?

Video-excerpt source : 09:50.7 to 10:11.9  in https://youtu.be/ntnF8y5iHTs?t=590 This piece is written on Dec 10 2019.  Fact : As on Dec 10 2019,  neither  the word 'Liberal'  nor  the word 'Liberalism' exists in the Indian constitution.  At Chennai International Centre, on Dec 06 2019, Salman Khurshid (saab) has been recorded to have made the following statements:  " Now I think, therefore, Secular, secularism has been thrashed so much that we need to look for another word that doesn't have the baggage . And that word, in legal, in in political philosophy is 'Liberal'. What is it (sic.) take to be a Liberal? A 'Liberal' is a person who says "you have a right to be wrong. "" [refer to video-excerpt above; almost verbatim] On Salman Khurshid's point about 'Secular' and 'Secularism' (in green above), it might not be out of place to be reminded about the following:  "Appeal C...
Read more