In Response To Daksh:
CJI Ray passed away on a Christmas Day. But he lives on! The Kesavananda Bench lives on.
The Basic Structure Doctrine has an able critic in Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran. My criticism however is more basic than his. I have a question and it is this: Did a Majority really decide Kesavananda? Judges after Judges have had their two bits of wisdom to share on the issue. But these two bits, all of it coagulated, cannot remotely substitute the words of he who never spoke – CJI Ray. I remember you.
Christmas Comedy Night with The Rudespot
Congratulations to Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran for having devised a series of interesting analogies to explain The Basic Structure Doctrine. The debate is livelier for you!
RR: “When you talk of a Structure, four professions are involved – Architecture, Civil and Structural Engineering, Masonry and Brick Laying.”
RNR: Let’s see. Katrina Kaif – Architecture (God’s Contribution, The Genes, The Vital Statistics), Engineering (The Gym, The Diet), Masonry (The Clothes, Bags, Shoes, Caps) and Brick Laying (The Experiences, The Memories). Got it!
RR: “While analyzing The Basic Structure – how can one forget the Architecture, the Design – and just come down to the Individual Bricks.”
RNR: While analyzing The Basic Structure of Katrina Kaif – how can one forget her Looks, her Style – and just come down to Bollywood, her lovers! True, that. Everything that she does and everything that she is, is indicative of her Basic Structure. The Constitution is a Living Body. Katrina is a Living Body. She is dynamic. She evolves every day. The Constitution is a Living, Breathing Katrina and No! we cannot be so emotional! We have to see what see eats too to know what she is.
RR: “When you strike down an Amendment to The Constitution, hit at its Basic Structure, are you going to look at how the Architecture is damaged? How the Structure is damaged? or are you going to look at the Colour of the Individual Bricks and the Quality of Individual Bricks and say that if one Brick is replaced by another, The Basic Structure is violated.”
RNR: When you hit at The Basic Structure of Katrina Kaif, by imposing rules of decorum on her, are you going to look at how she is carrying a Louis Vuitton instead of a Michael Korr? That she is eating hamburgers? or are you going to look at how the imposition of the rule changed the color and quality of a childhood or adolescent memory she had? Well, I am going to look at both to see whether her Basic Structure has been violated.
RNR EGO: Katrina Kaif! Katrina Kaif! What is this! If I change some of the bricks of your house… but your house still looks the same and is architecturally the same, matlab white house se alice in wonderland nahi banaya hai *&^$(^, are you really going to tell me I changed the basic structure of your house just by changing those bricks?
RNR to RNR EGO: Of course! Who are you to decide which Brick is important to me? Who are you to decide which memory in Katrina’s Brick Lane is so alive that your Rule-Making cannot withstand it?
RR: “Now, therefore, we are coming to Bricks and we don’t confine ourselves to the Structure.”
RNR: Of course! What else! Bricks are most Basic to the Structure. “The Constitution… a structure of adamantine strength, which will outlast and overcome all present and future destructive forces” – Dr. Sachidananda Sinha! The Brick Analysis.
RR: “Primacy is not part of the Architecture…It is supposedly a part of a Wall.”
RNR: “All in all it’s just another brick in the wall?” But this Brick is important to how the Song sounds.
“The Bench was bound by the ratio that Independence of Judiciary is part of the Basic Structure, and that Appointment of Judges is an integral part of the concept of Independence of Judiciary.”
“Direct participation of the Executive or other Non-Judicial elements would ultimately lead to structured bargaining in Appointments, if not, anything worse” – Hon’ble Justice Kurian Joseph.
RR: “Lawyers, now you can forget all about Overarching Principles.”
RR: “When the Amendment gave an institutional majority to the Judiciary, that is three, and deliberately opted for giving institutional minority to the Executive—one and institutional minority to civil society—two, weren’t the requirements of Primacy met? If you have an institutional majority wasn’t the requirement of Primacy met? Apparently not.”
RNR: Read, SCAORA v. UOI, 2015 (11) SCALE 1. I must say, your “apparently not” is as good as Goel J.’s “obvious reasons“. Remember: “As already mentioned, the role of the Law Minister and the Non-Judge Members cannot be placed at par with the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court. They cannot be compared for obvious reasons.” I gave him a 6/10. You deserve a 7, Sir.