Article 370 was meant to be 'temporary' provision in Constitution: Amit Shah
New Delhi, May 15: The now-scrapped Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was meant to be a "temporary" provision since the beginning and the framers of the Constitution had put it there "intelligently", Union Home Minister Amit Shah said on Monday.
Inaugurating a training programme on legislative drafting, Shah also said that if a legislation is drafted well, there is "no need for any court to give any explanation to any law".
If the drafting is simple and clear, it will also be easier to educate people about the law with minimal chances of errors by the executive, he said and added that if "grey areas" are left in the drafting, they will lead to "encroachment" in interpretation. Shah said if the drafting is complete and lucid, its interpretation will also be clear.
Referring to Article 370, which the BJP government at the Centre repealed in 2019, the home minister said the whole country wanted that the provision of the Constitution should not be in existence.
He also highlighted that when the Article was framed, it was mentioned in the index as "Temporary Provision of Article 370". Even debates on the Article were missing from the records of constituent assembly debates, Shah said and added that they were not printed.
Shah said it could well be imagined that whoever had drafted it and those who were part of the constituent assembly, how intelligently they put it and how after lots of thought the "temporary" word was inserted.
"An article of the Constitution cannot be temporary, it can be amended. If you read it even today -- the old Constitution, it is clearly written as Temporary Provision of Article 370," he said.
"Article 370 is no longer in existence. It has been repealed now. But please read it. It was mentioned in the index as 'Temporary Provision of Article 370'. If this 'temporary' word was not written, what would have happened. Tell me, can a provision of the Constitution be 'temporary'," he asked.
The Article was scrapped on August 5, 2019, a few months after Shah took charge as the country's home minister, and the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
The home minister said that a "legislation should reflect the political will of the Cabinet or Parliament".
"A law becomes undisputed if it is simple and clear. It (a law) should be framed in a way that the court does not need to make any explanation. When there is no need for any court to give any explanation to any law, that is a medal for you. Our aim has to be to draft a law as simple and clear as possible," Shah said.
When a law is made with ambiguities, it creates problems, the minister said and added that "if a law is made simple and clear, there is no need for the judiciary to intervene as grey areas leave scope for overstepping".
He said drafting of "the spirit of the legislature" is very significant work as simple translation is not sufficient and there has to be a proper explanation for it.
The home minister said the drafting skill of those who work in the legislative wing of Parliament and of state legislatures should be improved because the world is changing very rapidly.
Appreciating Parliament authorities for holding the training session, he said capacity building is very necessary and it has to be a continuous process. "We have to take proper action in this changing world and the laws have to be made according to today's requirements. If we don't have that kind of openness, we will be irrelevant," Shah said.
The home minister also said the BJP government under Narendra Modi has made lots of changes in laws. "We have scrapped nearly 2,000 irrelevant laws. Also, we have not hesitated to frame new laws," Shah said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
