26th Jan, 1950 : What exactly happened?

A lot of people actually asked me the extra significance of 26 Jan 1950, when we had already gotten independence from the British in 15 Aug 1947. What was the big deal that happened on 26th Jan 1950 after all?

Here's my attempt to clear the significance of the two dates and show how life changed after the first republic day.

One should know that on 15 Aug 1947 India did not become legally independent from British. Technically, it was partitioned into India and Pakistan on that day with both halves continuing to be British Dominions( like Canada till today, and Australia and New Zealand till 1986).

But 15 Aug 1947 did actually give to the two halves a right to decide their future and current affairs completely freely and also gave them the right to legally cut away from British whenever they felt like.

So , basically India exercised that right on 26th Jan 1950 while Pakistan exercised that right on 29th Feb 1956. Till these dates both these halves continued to be British Dominions.

Also there is a misconception that from 15 Aug 1947 every Indian , rich and poor earned a right to vote and choose their leaders. Actually,this right to vote did not come even on 26 Jan 1950. It came much later in 1952 after passing of a law in Parliament.

So the basic question still remains that how did life change for the common man after 26 Jan 1950?

The change of India becoming a republic from a British Dominion was a change in top only with this change having no effect on common people.

Though our Constitution, the blueprint of the current system, came into force on 26 Jan 1950, it was still a copy of the British laws. The system continued to be governed exactly as British left it because the Constitution was very very largely same as Government of India Act which the British had made to govern us.

It was a conscious decision of the freedom fighters to retain the British blueprint.

Therefore even the coming into force of the constitution on 26 Jan 1950 did not change the basic British character of the system for the common man. He continued to see the same institutions and courts and bureaucrats as he saw them before the gora log left.

In that case, what's the big deal that happened on 26th Jan 1950?

There was one big change for the common man on 26th Jan 1950 which he did not experience even on 15 Aug 1947.

There came the fundamental rights!

Suddenly from 26 Jan 1950 people earned the rights which neither the British had given and which even the independence did not provide and which the new India's laws could not violate.

There came the right to life and liberty. After 26 Jan 1950 the courts were flooded with petitions from common citizens praying that even the free India's police was arresting people without trial and evidence, a clear violation of right to liberty.

There came the right to express freely. After 26 Jan 1950 courts began to forgive angry utterances of the youth of the times against the then Indian government citing that the youth is exercising their new found right to express freely.

There came the right to equality. So suddenly from 26 Jan 1950 all the official titles of Choudharys and Rai Bahadurs and Nawabzadas disappeared.( Though officially, Rajpramukhs continued. In fact, till 1971 the Indian laws continued to recognize some Kings or Rajpramukhs as equivalent to Governors)

There came the right to property. Government could no longer just take your land and not give you the market price for it.

It is interesting to note that even the then Indian government did not realise that after 26 Jan 1950 the people would start using their rights so well. They thought that since the British have gone most of the violations of basic rights must have disappeared with them.

When the people, after 26 Jan 1950, started to use the fundamental rights the government of free India was caught on the wrong foot. They could not contain the people nor the courts which suddenly let people enjoy the liberties which even 15 Aug 1947 had not given to them.

The government could not control the people without violating or at least curtailing their liberties.

So finally, within one year of coming into force of the new system of liberties which the people were enjoying after 26 Jan 1950, the government amended the constitution and curtailed all the fundamental rights.

With that first amendment disappeared the right to property. The government could take your property and pay you peanuts in return.

The freedom of expression was curtailed. So a heavy criticism of the government came to be defined as sedition or rajdroh.

The right to life and liberty was curtailed. You could then be sent off to prison without evidence for 3 months.

All in all, 26th Jan 1950 marked the beginning of a very short period of a year when the common people of India did actually enjoy true freedom and liberty.

What a shame that it was such a shortlived true republic and that it was our own government which took away from us the rights that even the independence day did not give.

26th Jan 1950 was a date when we got our uncurtailed rights for a short period. 15 Aug 1947 did not give us those rights.

CWG headache

Sarkar needs all sort of excuses to intimidate you and me who do not care to know their rights.

These babus will pass anti-privacy laws just to tell you that terrorists need to be caught. They'll allow policemen to arrest without warrant for six months because real evidence can't be produced against terrorist and then use this same law to arrest a man who has written support from nobel prize winners.

Latest trick these babus have played is the 2000 bucks fine or jail if you drive in the CWG blue lane.

Let me tell you the police can't do it and they can get lost.

To impose penalty or restrain liberty(by putting in jail) of an individual the police needs to have a law debated and passed in the assembly. They just can't pass an order saying that because my mother was ill and I forgot to manage the CWG games therefore in this emergency situation citizen's will be jailed or fined heavily if they drive in the blue lane.

Secondly, they are passing orders under section 144 CrPc which is different from Motor Vehicles Act. So these white clothed bribesmen can't impound your vehicle or cut you the white slip for violating traffic laws. They just can't do it.

So if they do catch you doing it insist on a lawful receipt.

Thirdly, even their uncles can't arrest you or fine more than Rs 200 because they can arrest only by the power by IPC 188 for violating an order. But that power to arrest can only come once they get a permission from a court which has to first check that you did violate an order.

Technically, police can't arrest you or fine you directly because they saw you doing it. They have to ask the court before doing that.

Don't let these guys make a fool out of you.

Because they made a mess out of CWG so they decided not to debate in the assembly and just go ahead with these restrictions is unacceptable.

They can get lost!

For those who would rather listen..

Here is the believe it or not stuff in simple-speak.

More to come..

I have been collecting views and counterviews on my writeups. First piece on constitution designed well but ignored as well was published on TheMag.in at this link.

There have been a lots of exchanges on this topic with readers, some of whom wanted to know few real hard facts as well.

The second writeup an open and outright flouting of the constitution is also now out on the TheMag.in , as the cover story "The Blind side". It has got some verifiable information with the facts which you can google up as well.

There's more research content which show more stupidity in the government.

But our approach to solving these logical problems has to be through comprehensible questions.

With that approach, the other day I asked Nishant, a bright but lazy colleague, that how come only the media is speaking for the plight of the naxal tribals forced to take up violence while nobody cares to ask their smaller MPs and MLAs for not even speaking for the tribals in the parliament.

Why are only Chidambaram and Jyoti Basu speaking on naxalism? Where are their smaller politicians hiding?

Nishant didn't care much. And that, for me, is a bigger problem to solve.

Why the hell has nobody ever asked these questions...

There are simple things which need to be followed. Man on the street will hardly ever understand the constitution. Most lawyers hardly do. Though the one who do are mostly lawyers.

Here are a few questions which I hope somebody is going to ask an MP or an election commissioner or in the Parliament.

Q1) Why the hell does a new party have to choose from a list of symbols released by the Election Commission and thus have its own symbol out of the "free symbols" list maintained by the EC?

Q2) If two or more independent candidates want to share an election symbol without forming a party, and are willing to give that in writing why does the election commission have to still give them different symbols by drawing random lots?


I know you chaps are surprised by the first question. I thought a new party is free to choose symbols closely resembling whatever it believes in. But then look at this link here(and jump to page 78 of the page that opens) of the election commission official website. Your new party's choice of symbols is restricted to the EC's choices listed here. I didn't know that at all. And it is kind of dumb of us to accept that restriction.

The second question makes me think of divide and rule. If two or three chaps want to have a common symbol without forming a party (and therefore have a party president who controls the rest) then forcing them to choose separate symbols is like Lord Curzon or Aurangzeb forcing animosity on people who are willing to sort out their differences their own way.

If we don't have a problem, then whats your damn problem, EC man ?

Why can't me and my friends, if we ever choose to contest elections, have our own common symbol which nobody else wants?

Here's the clue to the solving the corruption problem, mathematically

A few blogs ago, I had posted an open treat for hungry folks who could answer my 3 specific and defined questions on the system being followed.

People tried but no one gave a verifiable answer. Answers were given in the comments. My erudite dost Abhishek Singhal came close I think though.

I had a clear suspicion of poor mathematical(almost) logic lurking somewhere. Since constitution is logically ok. That is, it does not give an individual minister any power at all. It gives power to Cabinet only.

Even the cabinet is not capable of using its power without formal approval of sarkari officers or the President. So there was no way by which an individual minister can get any power without support, and not submission, from the sarkari officer or the President.

Since power breeds corruption, therefore logically, individual minister could not have gotten so much power to be so much corrupt in India.

That is why I had posted those questions in that blog.

Having spent days in the Central Secretariat Library at Shastri Bhavan , hunting in the Gazettes of India, I fished out what I was looking for i.e. the method, by which ministers get to tower over the sarkari officers, and get their submission without the need of getting their support.

Obviously, as expected from above mentioned inferences and assumptions, it was illogical.

Here is the excerpt of one such order from the Gazette of India

Gazette of Indian Govt

Saturday: Oct 4 - Oct 10, 2008 ( Asvina 12, 1930)

Part 1- Sec II

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Personnel and Training

New Delhi, 19th September 2008

No A-32013/7/2008 - Ad.(I)(G) The President is pleased to appoint Shri Rahul Sarin, IAS(JH:74), as Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions) with effect from the afternoon of 13 September 2008 until further orders.

Signed by

Harish Chander

(Under Secretary)

Now, you won't probably see anything wrong with such an order to start with. In fact, even government officials do not see anything wrong with such an order when they see it, since it based on clear and open rules which anybody can inspect.

But the question is : Do you see it? You are the free mind. You are not bound by the rules and definitely not your mind. Can you fly? Higher than the government officials and see a larger picture here?

Not holding anything against Rahul Sarin or Harish Chander. I am sure they are great chaps.They have just followed the rules. There are other orders similar to this I am sure in other persons' names.

The process is in question here. Not the persons.

A mathematical eye should definetely notice , in the first place, that this order for appointment of a Secretary has been signed by an Under Secretary of the same department, who is actually lower in rank and reports into the same senior whom he is appointing.

The mathematican with constitution in his hand, should further be able to predict similar illogical process emnating from this one.

For example, that this poor application of logic, likely happens in only this department of all the babudom in India. You know why? Because it is this department which does transfers and appointments of all the sarkari officers.

Multiply this illogical process into State levels as well, and you begin to know why corruption is pervasive across India.

Eliminate other countries following similar Parliamentary Westminister system but not following this poor logical process and you'll know why corruption is occuring in our country whereas other countries having similar constitution as ours do not have it.

You have a reason to speak now. And I have a responsibility to show you how you not speaking keeps too much burden on the courts to correct the system.

There are more examples ahead.

Treat for you..

You guys know that I am too much into constitution and its damn logic. These two things together should be able to solve a lot of our own queries about cause of corruption.

So , logically I kind of thought, that there is some major illogical lafda lurking at the way top ministers and bureaucrats work. I mean, c'mon, the constitution does not give powers to individual ministers at all. It gives power to Cabinet only; and that power to the Cabinet is also not formal at all. The formal power still has to vest with President and sarkari officers.

After a lot of fact finding, and crazy research through Transaction of business rules, appointment committee of cabinet process, persmin.nic.in , views from top civil servants I think I got close to this illogical working somewhere.

Basically, whoever amongst you answers these questions of mine and maintains logic(which is basically no round robin should be happening in the answers) gets a treat.

Q1) Which sarkari officer appoints the Secretary(Personnel, Ministry of Personnel) ?

Q2) Which sarkari officer appoints the Special Secretary & Establishment Officer (DoPT, Secretary to ACC) ?

Q3) Which sarkari officer appoints the Cabinet Secretary ?

In case, you think its the President then thats also acceptable as an answer. But ministers or a committee of ministers is not acceptable because they do not have the authority to do so due to article 77 clause 2 of the constitution.

I love this constitution. That combined with pure mathematical logic should be our cure.

And this illogical lafda , if proven such, is discovered right now at center level. I am sure such anomalies are even more prevalent at State level.

Answer this and you have delivered your first medicine for corruption.

(Btw, I have already filed an RTI for the above queries. And those guys were as lost to the logical answer as any outsider.)

Be Free

You speak of system being rotten. So do I. And I am going to take up this beaten up topic once again.

For analysis sake, I’ll assume the system to be same as The Constitution of India. The constitution is above all. It is supreme that I firmly believe. You can call me a constitutional extremist but that’s what I am. Today that’s what I need to be. That is my only hope today of the system, from the system. It is my holy book. No system or institution stands above it. Even the Supreme Court. As a citizen of India, you and I have a written fundamental duty to abide by that written document. You should know that per Article 51A clause (a) you will be duty bound to respectfully disagree even with the Supreme Court if it’s interpretations are not abiding with the constitution.

Makers of the constitution were not dumb. They made the checks and balances in the system to avoid getting power concentrated in the ministers. Refer to the recorded debates of the constituent assembly which was making the constitution before 26th Jan 1950. Their concerns raised then look almost prophetic today.

Only assumption that the makers of the constitution made and did not write in the constitution is that the written constitution will be followed and made to be followed by the institutions it is creating.

Obviously you and I do not expect the wily politicians and their cohorts to follow the constitution out of their own sweet will. Those guys are not that great.

Besides following the constitution to the dot makes them loose their powers big time.

Do you know that government claims that all the day to day powers of the President are actually that of ministers because of article 74(1) which binds the President to accept ministers’ advice?

But why hasn’t the government ever highlighted the clause right next to the above clause in the constitution which says that no court can assume existence, let alone the nature, of such an advice? Effectively, highlighting the second clause means giving a lot of leeway to the Prez.

Do you know that constitution allows all orders only in the name of the President? Then why has the Supreme Court declared this clause as non-mandatory. Orders made by ministers have thus been taken as orders of government. Hence this laxity by court has invited even more corruption.

Do you know that constitution says that all transfers have to be consulted through UPSC? And if the suggestion of UPSC is not followed then the government has to explain that with a memorandum in the Parliament. It does not happen though you may like to think it does.

I can go on and on. But that’s not the point I want to make today. Since it’s the Supreme Court itself which is not taking the constitution seriously enough for the sake of “not only delivering justice, but also appearing to deliver justice”, there’s little you can expect from them, though the court is still our best institution. The point is that the written constitution has to be followed.

Do not underestimate your power of expression. You earned the right to express after 26th Jan 1950 even though the right to vote had already come in before that date(Provincial elections existed even before independence). Freedom gave us the everyday right to express. Freely and fearlessly. Use that power and scare the hell out of the institutions that are taking your silence for granted.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Better pay that price now. Or else you will be forced to pay against your will. The least you could do is make them follow the constitution. Everything else will fall in place.

Wake up

Here are a few myths about what all of you think to be true?

1) Politicians are responsible for maintaining law and order -----

You've got to be kidding me if you believe that to be true.Read the constitution. Law and order is part of your state's Governor's job.

Check out the State List in Seventh schedule of the constitution. Item 1 and 2 relate to law and order being state subject. Article 162 empowers executive powers to extend on state subjects.Article 153 gives executive power to Governors.

Therefore, law and order comes under Governor of the state.

The idea is separation of powers here. Makers of constitution knew power corrupts therefore they gave such powers not to the ministers who can anyway make country-changing laws, but to governors and his team.

2) If a politician gives a corrupt order to a bureaucrat in writing, then the politician can be booked for corruption -----

Kid me even more if you like, but this is far from true. I am sorry to break your hopes of jailing a corrupt politician solely on the basis of a clear corrupt order in writing being produced in court, but this is simply not possible.

Here's the logic. As per the constitution article 163(3), a politician's aid and advice which are orders for the bureaucrats, cannot be enquired into any court of law. So the bureaucrat gets the boot and politician saves his neck.

The idea here is trust. The assumption is that the bureaucrat trusted the ministers advice, if at all it was there, was constitutional and as per the law that is why he gave the go ahead.

3) India is completely free from the British Crown since 1947 ---

You thought we've gained complete independence. Here's the dough on this one.

India was a member of Commonwealth before independence, because of colonisation. IN 1947 Mountbatten was given the mandate by Atlee, the PM in UK, to make India free condition to continuing allegiance to Crown through Commonwealth. So he did.

Later after a year of independence Nehru requested that India should continue to get full benefits of Commonwealth in return of which India will accept the Crown as the symbol of Commonwealth.
And so it stands now. Countries of commonwealth even now cannot choose the head of the Commonwealth. The next head will be a wife ditcher whose child wears Nazi symbols and not somebody else that the countries may want to appoint.

India is very free of the British Queen. But India still recognises her authority related to Commonwealth activities. Mountbatten succeeded in granting India a conditional independence. It is not yet a complete independence. We still take some orders from a person sitting thousands of miles away in Britain , in whose appointment we have no say at all.

Don't believe me. Check out this official Commonwealth link ( http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/214257/FileName/TheLondonDeclaration1949.pdf ).

4) If not the politicians, at least the Supreme Court follows the constitution ---

The Supreme court is our best hope but it also makes mistakes. And these mistakes go a long way in giving power to politicians.

For example, constitutionally per Article 166 all government orders have to be in name of Governor or signed by persons authorised by him to do so. Courts have held that this part of constitution is really not mandatory because it'll be very inconvenient to follow it every now and then. So because of this laxity by Supreme court sometimes even politicians get to issue direct instructions bypassing the bureaucrat authorised to issue orders. And sometimes, personal opinions of bureaucrats are fished out as government decisions and thus implemented.

For another example, constitution's article 163(3) says courts are not supposed to analyse if anything and what went on between a politician and a bureaucrat. It is a matter of trust between them. Yet the courts assume that bureaucrats must be getting orders from the politicians. Such judgements make the bureaucrats who are more technically capable of taking good decisions put the onus on politicians , this inviting even more interference.

For another example, Constitution's article154(1) says bureaucrats are responsible for all the real work. Yet the court, in many a judgements make the politicians responsible for all the real work. So because of this consideration by the courts the bureaucrats do not do any real work till a politician or his henchmen asks him to do it.

These are just a few examples of costly mistakes by Supreme court in interpreting non-subjective portions of constitution. Courts basically want the system to run like the British system which it cannot because we are different. Somebody wake up the courts!!!!

5) Politicians should be judged by the amount of work done -----

Make no mistake again. Everyday real work of roads, law and order, water is not a politicians responsibility. In fact powers of politicians are much more limited in the constitution than is perceived. (As a yardstick if you'd like the word "minister" is mentioned 67 times only in the constitution compared to "Governor" which is mentioned about 350 times.) Politicians' job is to make laws applicable even after he is dead. So if your community would like a law passed with the help of your local politician that says government has to have a guarantee clause in all road builder's contracts about maintainence of roads upto 3 years; getting such a law passed would be the politician's job. If the politician is engaging himself in ensuring that the said clause is there in all contracts instead of building up consensus to pass that law then such a politician should be kicked out.

We already have a machinery that will follow the rules if politicians make them. We are not paying crores for elections in this country to make the politicians do jobs for which we already have excess people. Politicians are elected to make rules that will last longer than their term in office. Thats what constitution expects them to do.

Politicians should be judged by the amount of laws passed by them. If bureaucrats are making rules, and politicians are getting into everyday activities of the government machinery then they have got their roles reversed against the constitution.

6) The system does not work and needs a revolt ----

C'mon! Really???? Well lets say you have the revolt and you get a system in writing that you want. What will you do if even that system in writing is not being followed? Another revolt, eh?

Thats what is happening with our constitution. It was put into writing by the freedom fighters. But the very words of constitution are not being followed as written ,sometimes by good courts as well at heavy costs later on.

So you cannot say that the system does not work simple because it has not yet been put to use as it is written till now. Lets cut the bull of revolt and all therefore.

Express your opinion on youtube. Express your anger on twitter. Fwd sms. Ring up the radio fm channels. Speak up on the internet. Its the least you can do. You are educated. You've got freedom. Use it or you don't deserve it!

This is my country and nobody tells me its British in anyway..

I can't just wait and see all this dysfunctioning of the system before my eyes and do nothing about it. Thus I went into one academic research exercise some time ago, to figure out what's going wrong. All this criminal-politician-bureaucrat nexus talk has got to be a symptom of a malfunction at a higher level, and not a cause of the malfunction I thought.Basics and the original document, is what I have gone into. And I like to keep things simple for understanding, based on what I have been taught and understood.

So well, basic point number (1) My education has taught me that the constitution is supreme since it is the creator of all the powers , rights, functions of this republic. I take that at face value. Let me put it as thus that I firmly believe that the constitution is even above the Supreme court. If the Supreme court attempts to interpret the provisions of the constitutions then it has to first make a case before me that the said provision is ambiguous and needs interpretation. If the Supreme court fails to convince me about what is written in the constitution is ambiguous, then I will have to make a choice between the clear unambiguous letter of the constitution and the interpretation of the court. It is needless to say, that I will follow the written and unambiguous letter of the constitution and not the Supreme court. Simply because, the constitution is even above the supreme court. The constitution is that supreme. Its that simple.

This simple point of constitution being supreme goes further. The constitution that has been handed over to and adopted by me on the 26th Jan of 1950 has since then been supreme.Since that day, the constitution has risen even above its creator, Baba Saheb Ambedkar's opinions, or the discussions that preceded 26th Jan, 1950. The constitution presented to me after that date was even above the constituent assembly's discussions. It has become supreme. And it remains so. After that day, only Supreme court had the power to interpret the ambiguous provisions of the constitution. And the court has to use its own judgment while interpreting it. Not the opinion of constituent assembly, not the opinion of Ambedkar, not Rajendra Prasad's but its own. Not even the role model, Mahatma Gandhi's.Nothing else. If the court does that then the court is implicitly placing the assembly's debates, and the opinions of great men above that of constitution. The constitution is even above great men.Above history. Above the debate of parliamentary or presidential system. Above what inspired it.Above whether it is good or bad for me. It is what it is. And I have sworn by it as it was presented to me on 26th Jan, 1950.

The supremacy of the constitution cannot be underemphasized by me. It is the only thing after God. Supreme court needs to be very very careful while interpreting it. This was a simple point. But needed much emphasis. Supreme court should realize this that it is subservient to the constitution, and not above it by virtue of powers of interpretation. It should not force me to make a choice between its interpretations and what is clearly not ambiguous as I would hate to dutifully go against the supreme court because I respect it a lot. I may be silent but I am not to be taken for granted.

(2) The second basic point that I have been taught is about separation of powers indemocracy. Ideally, a democracy should have an independent judiciary,executive and legislative branch for keeping checks on each other. Sharing of powers would cause nexus. However, I have also been taught in my history that not all democracies may follow this in ideal sense. Now I don't care what other countries follow or not. I needed to know whether my country follows it or not. So I downloaded the latest constitution of India from the government's website(http://india.gov.in/govt/constitutions_india.php) and checked it out.

It was with great and pleasant surprise that I discovered that there are three different chapters to legislature, executive and judiciary. They are not presented together anywhere.President seems to have been given far more weight in the constitution than the prime minister. A ctrl+F on the soft copy of the constitution gave me only 8 instances of Prime Minister as against 454 for the president. Somebody please tell me how the hell can the president be just a figure head. Prime minister looks more like a figure head than the President. I am definitely not paying my taxes to keep a figurehead because she is not a figurehead. The constitution , by which I have sworn, would have given all the executive power to the prime minister otherwise but it does not do so.

So how do the politicians start bullying the bureaucrats and the police in the name of the constitution? How does this nexus develop? These politicians say that it is because of article 74(1) and article 163(1) by way of which president/governor are bound to take the aid/advice of the ministers. I checked that in the constitution and found that it is true.And that puts the whole executive under the legislative, these politicians say. And even the Supreme court in various judgments says that the Indian constitution is based on Britian's Westminster model of Parliamentary system and not Presidential system. So like the Westminster model the executive powers reside with the legislative.

Well, my one problem is with this tendency of the Supreme court to assert itself above the constitution. Does it anywhere say that India would have a parliamentary system or define it?Is there any ambiguity at any part of the constitution about British model of Parliamentary system? There is no ambiguity because it is not mentioned. Why does Supreme court interpret when it is not supposed to? The court goes into Government of India Act before Independence to help in interpreting the model of constitution when it is not supposed to. The constitution is what it is. Give it a new system name if you can't find a precedent in democracy for such a model. Somebody remind the supreme court that we got rid of British on 15th Aug 1947. And that independence was not theoretical but mental as well. To assume that constitution is like the British model and therefore the assumptions of the British model apply is a grave insult to my independence of thought. I am free. The young are born free. My mind is free. So it was when I adopted the constitution AFTER independence. And to convey that the model of constitution is dependent on assumptions and workings of British model not only smacks of a mind still not independent, but also puts the constitution below or at par with the British parliamentary system whatever its assumption are. I hold that against the Supreme court.

The constitution is supreme.It is what it is. There is no ambiguity about what kind of system it is and no need to apply the system's assumptions to it. The constitution is independent. Independent of definition of any system in the world. It was adopted in freedom. It shall always be. The name of the system practiced anywhere else in the world is not relevant and the constitution is therefore not subject to ambiguity and consequential interpretation following of that system's name. It is free. A beautiful gift to the people of India on independence. And that gift was given not by British. I , the free people of this country, reject the judgments of Supreme court likening my constitution to British parliamentary system and therefore applying the assumptions of parliamentary system. My constitution is not Presidential system either if it has been declared so in any judgment. It is what it is.

The court judges ,perhaps bred in colonial institutions, never realized the independence of the mind. I need to remind the judges that they hold the seat of Supreme court of the largest democracy in the world. The Supreme court of this country is above the supreme court of England . Or United States. You are the largest and most important judiciary body in the history of civilization. You set examples. You do not fit other court or systems to your systems. You guide other systems. You are superior to all systems, only below the constitution and God. The English parliamentary system should mention that it sees Indian system of whatever name as an example for itself. The US presidential system should mention that it looks up to Indian system of whatever name as example. It is upto the Supreme court of India to lead, by example, the world. Set up a new name for the Indian system when it is clearly unambiguous from the constitution's preamble that word parliamentary or presidential system have not been mentioned in describing my democratic republic.

This over interpretation by court that of parliamentary system being the one in India , and therefore the executive being not independent of legislature is my biggest problem. Article 74(2) keeps the advice of the ministers out of purview of court. It even keeps inquiring whether any advice was tendered at all from purview of the court. Somebody tell me how doesn't this article 74(2) keep the question whether executive is acting on the minister's advice out of the courts' purview? By virtue of article 74(2), it is not for the court to decide whether a certain executive action is independent of legislature. The independence of executive action from legislature is beyond judicial purview due to article 74(2). Then why does the court keep equating the President to a King of some island country whereKing is the ceremonial head and who always needs to take advice from the ministers. Some other organ of the state can make that comment but not the court because it is expressly barred from inquiring if an advice was given at all. This article 74(2) also clearly mentions the word "if at all any advice was given" , which means that court cannot even hold the president for not following article 74(1) . It is a matter between legislature and the executive only.

But then who must the court hold responsible for executive action if it is barred from inquiring even the existence of the advice. Again, the constitution answers this as it holds all executive actions are taken in the name of president(or the governor). That is unambiguous. There is no room for interpretation. The president must be held responsible , by court, for all executive actions. It is clear.

Even if the the president submits the evidence of advice tendered by the legislature, the court should refuse to inquire into it, let alone its nature of what it is, as it is expressly prohibited in article 74(2).

It is my firm belief that this article 74(2) is the savior of the independence of executive from legislature, from courts' point of view. And the courts' must begin to hold the executive responsible for executive actions.

These are simple things clearly mentioned in my constitution. Why do judges complicate it by getting in Westminster model and what not? My constitution is based on principles that people of my country are expected to understand. All this debate of Westminster model is beyond even the educated men of my country. It stinks of an elite opinion and is not representative of opinion of the free people of this country that ours is a Westminster model.

I want to appeal to Supreme court judges as it is the only organ of the state that I have hopes from. I still respect it and bow to it. The fact that the courts have assumed dependence of executive on legislature on the basis of article 74(1) , inspite of the courts expressly barred to even inquire into existence of the advice, in article 74(2), has created the problems of bureaucrat-politician nexus. Article 74(2) words "if at all" would bar court from even assuming dependence based on advice. The supreme court needs to be shown by the people of this country, not by the legislature, not by the executive that as far as the court is concerned the constitution has kept the executive independent from the legislature. The court needs to discourage governors/presidents from presenting the minister's advice to the court as article 74(2) bars the court from even inquiring into its existence. The courts must stop the buck at the governor/president and hold them responsible for executive action. Most of the time executive actions are made answerable to the ministers under 74(1) by way of their advice. This must be stopped by the courts. The media, the people or the legislature can hold the executive for not following article 74(1) but not the court. Because the substance of article 74(1) , the advice, is kept beyond courts purview by article 74(2). But not beyond the purview of the legislature itself.

Such activist actions by Supreme court( I know I am hoping a lot from the court as it has already helped us, the free people , a lot) will help in checking legislature from undermining executive. It will help the executive in asserting its relative independence from the legislature. It will at the minimum stop this senseless transfers of IAS officers and police officers at the whim of politicians. Politicians will stop taking the bureaucrats for granted. I sincerely believe that the rise in corruption and its extense in every sphere of our lives is because of Supreme court's judgments on acknowledging even the existence of minister's advices when the governors/presidents presented them. The court should have maintained distance from even acknowledging it in spirit of article 74(2).

I would go further, and appeal to the Supreme court, to make the executive assert itsindependence from the legislature, as far as the court is concerned. Even if the executive does not want to assert the independence in court because like everybody the executive would tend to pass on the buck to the ministers. I appeal to the Supreme court to make the buck stop at the executive as far as court proceedings are concerned. Beyond that lies the advice,whose even the existence is beyond the inquiry of the court.

I believe that my constitution is most well balanced and beautiful. It keeps the executive actions under legislature by article 74(1) but out of purview of court by article 74(2). It keeps the judiciary appointment under executive but out of legislature purview. It keeps the legislature under the judiciary (who can declare laws made by legislature as constitutional or not) but keeps it out of purview of executive. One organ checks the next. In my knowledge,there is no other constitution in the world to have achieved this fine balance in three of itsorgans of judiciary, legislative and executive. I am happy and must be blessed to have got this constitution as my independence gift.

What I am unhappy about is the Supreme court judgments have not acknowledged the balance and beauty of this country's constitution. Of not making the executive realize that it is judicially independent of legislature. Of letting the executive voluntarily give up its independence to executive even in court when the buck should have stopped at the executive in the court. Outside the court, the legislature and media could have taken the buck to minister though.

Had the Supreme court asserted the independence of executive from legislature in courts then at least we would have had less corrupt society, less distrust of police and the bureaucrats.Perhaps we would have had politicians who would focus on making the laws better and tighter,instead of giving bureaucrats "advice" and get their transfers here and there. We might have had news which said that the chief minister was sternly warned by local police for smoking in public. News of how the tightened law passed by ministers made IAS officers declare every penny of their assets would have occurred. News of how the new rules passed made all the police officers declare their reasons for not keeping crime rate in check. We would have been in a much better position had the courts not unwittingly encouraged this politician-bureaucrat nexus. Legislature would have been involved in law making and passing only. Executive would have been involved in maintaining the law and plans passed by legislature only. Both would have been acting independent of each other.

Problems in my country are simpler to solve than it looks. Courts need to understand the simple concept of independence first of all. They need to realize that we have aconstitution made by free people and free minds. It is not a Westminster British model. It has its very very independent identity. They should refrain from that opinion of elite few who understand Westminster and then apply its assumptions here. I am a farmer, a cobbler, a businessman, a tribesman, a worker, an accused, a defendant but I do not understand Westminster in this country and much less will take any likening of my constitution to Westminster after independence.

Secondly, the courts must acknowledge the beauty and fine balance between the three organs in our constitution. The courts must do everything within its powers to preserve this balance,even by discouraging the executive to acknowledge even the existence of advice in a court.

Its simple and basics that are required to be understood.