Federalism Most Suited Idea For India In View Of Its Diversity, Centralising Whole Things Will Lead To… – Live Law – Indian Legal News

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar on Saturday remarked the the idea of Federalism is the most suitable idea for India, in view of its diversity.

"The minute you try to centralize the whole thing and create a model which you believe is good for the entire country and for all the states and all the classes of people, then we are into trouble", he said.

He was talking at a panel discussion as part of the Dakshin Dialogues 2022 A conclave held by the South First Media Group on the topic of Federalism and Judiciary.

Justice Chelameswar explained that the scheme of the Constitution indicates that more powers are to be invested in the Union Government.

Talking about the Indian Constitution he stated that, "now essentially the tendency of Indian Constitution is to create more and more power in favour of the Union Government and in the process in the last 70 years on various occasions wittingly or unwittingly various constitutional organs fell a prey to this trap."

A member of the audience raised a query before Justice Chelameswar that, "We have grown up with the belief that you are the last resort in the sense that the Supreme Court of India is the last resort for the people in the context of federalism for the states. Please tell us honestly do you think we are now in a situation where the Supreme Court can be considered as a last resort where the interest of states and the people are going to be protected. We are hearing fabulous grand statement made by your brother judges in seminars and workshops but in terms of orders being delivered there things appear to be different."

Justice Chelameswar in a lighter vein remarked that, "Those grand statement are widely published by you and your ilk. It is because of you these statements come please remember that, don't blame anybody first blame yourself and first of all your question 'please tell us honestly' what makes you believe that I will not give an honest answer I don't understand".

Responding to the query put forward he stated, "You said the Supreme Court, I don't believe that there is a Supreme Court, there are 16 Supreme Courts in the country as of today, the highest court of this country doesn't sit enblock. What is decided by two judges sitting in a bench today this morning might be disagreed to by another bench in the afternoon session. I am not blaming anybody. I am giving you the factual in which case what Supreme Court are you talking about. I am not saying it for the first time here, something like this I said it when I had the privilege of delivering Late Justice H. R. Khanna memorial lecture sometime in 2015 and its not I who invented it, it all started long back.

Justice Hidayatullah former Chief Justice of India in this city delivering a lecture made the statement, it's become a two judge quote, he said, in our days most of the important matters were decided by Constitution benches and nowadays everything is being decided by two judges and the next morning another two judges reverse it. It happens because naturally it is such a system where the highest court sits enblock on any issue a decision would be a decision of the court. Even when the entire court sits together, there can be differences of opinion, but the majority opinion would be won and that would be binding on the country. When you have 15 or 16 benches of the Supreme Court, every decision of the bench is binding on the rest of the country. This is a system which perhaps requires some attention to be paid. Something is to be done about it because without meaning any disrespect, people who are in control of the executive power would always love this kind of a system because it is always comfortable to handle situations. If the entire Supreme Court of 30 judges or 20 judges were to sit together and decide the matter and if the judgment is not palatable to the government which ever may be the party, it may take a decade or two before it can be reviewed because to pursuade the 20 judges that earlier judgment requires reconsideration because of xyz factors it takes a lot of time. If matters are decided by two judges or three judges much easier to persuade two judges or three judges that earlier judgment requires reconsideration. Therefore, nobody bothers about this thing. If debating these matters let us debate about these things".

Read more here:

Federalism Most Suited Idea For India In View Of Its Diversity, Centralising Whole Things Will Lead To... - Live Law - Indian Legal News