PM Modi at CJI’s Ganpati Puja, why is Article 50 being discussed?

There is a buzz of Ganpati festival in the country at this time. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, PM Narendra Modi participated in the puja ceremony at the house of CJI DY Chandrachud, its pictures and video are viral. But a debate has also started about this and Article 50 is being talked about again and again. ‘Separation of Power’ is mentioned in this article of the Constitution. Know what it is, and why it is being referred to in the latest case.

what the judges have to say

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) called the visit a bad precedent as it raised questions about the separation of powers and the impartiality of the judiciary. CJAR is a group of judges that works to ensure accountability of judges.

This group raises some old examples, like in the year 2019, the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ignored the rules while hearing his own case. Earlier this year, Kolkata High Court judge Abhijit Ganguly resigned and immediately joined a political party. After retirement, many judges became members of the Rajya Sabha immediately after retirement.

Regarding the meeting of the PM and the Chief Justice, the opposition camp including CJAR is constantly citing Article 50. This article says that the country will take steps to keep the executive and the judiciary separate in its public services. This section kept stressing on maintaining distance between the two.

When did the talk start

Draft Article 39-A (now Article 50) was not included in the first draft of the Constitution. It was presented and discussed in the Constituent Assembly in November 1948. After this, it was decided that within three years, the executive and judiciary should be completely separated in public services. It should be noted here that during the British period, the judicial and executive branches were connected in most parts of the country.

The Constitution of India website says that one member of the Constituent Assembly was against it. He feared that this would give undue power to the judiciary. In response, it was argued that judicial independence is equally important in a democracy. Eventually the debate ended and the Constituent Assembly accepted this article.

Why was distance considered necessary between the two?

– Through this, all the power is prevented from being concentrated in one place. If the judicial and executive power are in the same hands, then the fear of bias increases.
– If the executive acts arbitrarily then the judiciary can stop it, this way impartiality is maintained.
– Corruption can be curbed through decentralization of power and courts.
– Courts can give independent decisions without any kind of pressure.

Keeping yourself separate is a challenge in itself

Many times the top leadership of both the powers meet each other or are seen having casual conversations. In such a situation it can be difficult to decide whether both of them have no influence on each other. However, if we talk about our country, the Supreme Court has set many examples where it has taken fair decisions even in the case of big powers.

When the court took historic decisions

Former PM Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain is often mentioned in this. This was in the seventies when Raj Narain, a political rival of Mrs Gandhi, filed a petition questioning her victory from Rae Bareli. He alleged that Mrs Gandhi had resorted to corruption during the campaign, used government machinery, and through that she won. He demanded cancellation of the election.

The case reached the Allahabad High Court. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha was hearing it. The court found that under the Representation of the People Act, Indira Gandhi had used government resources for herself. Hence, she was declared ineligible to contest Lok Sabha or Assembly elections for 6 years. The case also reached the Supreme Court, but here too the judiciary stood by its decision. However, later the then judge VR Krishna Iyer partially stayed the High Court’s decision. According to this, the former PM could participate in the proceedings of Parliament, but could not vote. This was a big decision, which is cited as an example even today.

what does the supreme court say

In May 1997, the Supreme Court had made a big statement on keeping the judiciary and executive powers separate. During the full court meeting, it was decided that judges should practice some level of aloofness while maintaining the dignity of their position. They should know that they are in the public eye and they should not commit any mistake or act that hurts the dignity of the position.

However, it is also true that the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of the country meet many times and these are necessary to fulfill the rights and responsibilities given to them by the Constitution. Appointments to many top posts like Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CBI Chief are made jointly by the PM, CJI and Leader of the Opposition, so naturally they have to meet apart from public programs.