कॉलेजियम विवाद में रिजिजू ने शेयर किया पूर्व-जज का बयान: बोले- सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जनता का प्रतिनिधि होना जरूरी, लेकिन यहां तानाशाही हावी

Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has given a new statement in the Government vs Supreme Court Collegium dispute. He shared the statement of a former judge of the Delhi High Court. Justice RS Sodhi had said that the Supreme Court has hijacked the Constitution. If there is an elected representation of the public in the Supreme Court, then only the public gets justice.

Supporting this, Kiren Rijiju said that this is a noble voice of a judge. This is the most sensible approach. This is the sensible opinion of most of the people of the country. They also feel that there should be a representative of the public in the Supreme Court. Only those people do not follow the provisions of the constitution and the opinion of the people, who consider themselves above the constitution. The judge had said these things through a YouTube channel.

Rijiju said – The beauty of democracy is its success
The real beauty of Indian democracy is its success. The people rule themselves through their representatives. Elected representatives represent the interests of the people and make laws. Our judiciary is independent but our constitution is supreme.

What are the former judges doing in the video?
,When our constitution was made, there was a system in it, there was a whole chapter on how judges are appointed. Those who say that this system is unconstitutional can talk about amending the constitution. Only the Parliament will do this amendment. But the Supreme Court has hijacked the Constitution itself. He said that we will appoint ourselves and the government will have no hand in this.

The High Court does not come under the Supreme Court. It is an independent institution of every state. The judges of the High Court are appointed by the judges of the Supreme Court. And Supreme Court judges are appointing themselves. In such a situation, the judges of the High Court, who considered themselves independent in the state, start looking towards the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court transfers whomever it wants to send. With such functioning, the High Court becomes subordinate to the Supreme Court, which our constitution has never said. The Supreme Court is supreme in its sphere, the High Court was supreme in its sphere. But now all the judges of the High Court wag their tail behind the Supreme Court. Is this a good thing?’

The Supreme Court itself has taken away the sovereignty that belongs to the Parliament. People have appointed the Parliament, not the judges of the Supreme Court. In this context, is the voice of the people, is the Supreme Court the voice of the people or is the Parliament the voice of the people? We should understand whether the Parliament is supreme in making laws or the Supreme Court is supreme? The Supreme Court cannot make laws. He has no right. Then there is no need of Parliament. But at this time there is a deadlock-like situation between the Parliament and the Supreme Court. Both are determined to declare themselves supreme to each other, so how will it be resolved.

The appointing authority in the country rests with the President. So they will decide that whatever appointment they will make, with whose opinion they will do it. The President decides whom to appoint with the help of the Council of Ministers. In such a situation, the Parliament became supreme. In a democracy, the supremacy of the Parliament cannot be denied. This is not dictatorship, the Supreme Court is going towards dictatorship. But it should always be remembered that the Supreme Court is not elected by the people, so it cannot be Supreme.