Editorial with Sujit Nair | ‘CJI Responsible For All Civil Wars Happening In India’: Nishikant Dubey

[00:00:00] Namaskar Welcome to another episode of Editorial Now, this is an interesting editorial, very interesting editorial I tell you. You see, the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjeev Khanna is responsible for all the civil wars happening in this country. Civil wars happening in this country. This is a statement that was made by the U.S.A.P.A.R.D.

[00:00:30] by a Jarkhand Bharatiyah Janata Party MP called Nishikant Dubey. Let's talk about this. Let's get right into the show. So, like I said, today is a very interesting editorial. Now, Mr. Nishikant Dubey, the Bharatiyah Janata Party Member of Parliament from Jarkhand made a statement. The statement he made was that Chief Justice of India, Justice

[00:01:06] Sanjeev Khanna, Sanjeev Khanna, he says, is responsible for all the civil wars that are happening in this country. All the civil war happening in this country responsible, Justice Sanjeev Khanna. Okay, let's start with point number one as to why he says this. He said this in response to the Supreme Court judgment incidentally which was given by

[00:01:39] Justice Mahadevan and Justice Pardivala and not Justice Sanjeev Khanna. He gave this in response to that particular judgment wherein the Supreme Court bench said that listen, the president has three months to give assent on the bill or respond to a bill and a governor has one month to give assent to a bill or respond to the bill. One month and three months and you can't sit on a bill forever. You can't sit on a bill forever. So, it has to be there has to be some kind of

[00:02:08] deadline. This was the judgment that Supreme Court gave last week. This is in response to that. Now, let's take his first argument. The first argument what he says is he says if judges are going to give opinions on legislature and the working of the legislature and the working of the president then why do we need a parliament? Why do we need an assembly? We don't need all that. Let judges only be the super

[00:02:38] legislatures. They only give everything. They only make a bill. They only make a bill, pass a bill and convert into an act and then enforce it. Why do you need all this assembly and legislature? This is his first point. Now, the point, the answer to this first point is the fact that of course, of course, it is the legislature according to our constitution who makes a bill, who passes a bill and converts that into a law.

[00:03:08] No doubt about it. No doubt about it. And no other constitutional authority should be able to interfere in this. But pray tell me, pray tell me, a governor not giving assent to the bill, not responding to the bill, holding on to the bill forever. Is that a democratic process?

[00:03:29] Is it not interfering with the assembly? It is not. Is it not interfering with the assembly? At that point in time, the president hold on to the bill. Is it not interfering with the parliament? Are you not depriving the legislatures of their right? A legislature like Mr. Nishikan Dubey, how and why is he blaming the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is actually helping the legislatures.

[00:04:03] Saying that, Baba, when you pass a bill, I will ensure that the governor or the president responds to it in a timely fashion. Is it helping the legislature or is it going against the legislature? If it is helping the legislature, then why is the legislature so angry and saying that all the civil wars are happening because of him? Why is he angry?

[00:04:22] Why is he angry? Ah, now the logic is, logically, possibly, possibly, the governors or the president of this country may not give assent to a bill, which possibly the ruling dispensation, the ruling political party, the government doesn't want them to give.

[00:04:45] So, any party, any party ruling the state, if they want a bill to be passed and the central government doesn't want that bill to be passed, the central government can easily ask the governor, you sit on that bill and the governor can do it. Now, if that happens, is it not murder of democracy?

[00:05:08] Because, mind you, that particular assembly, those MLAs, those member of legislative assembly, they are elected by the people of that state. And the bill they pass and want it to be converted into an act, if that bill is sat on by the governor or the president, then isn't it going against the democratic ethos, the entire concept of democracy? Same is the case with the parliament.

[00:05:36] The point is, if a president and a governor can stop a bill from the assembly or the parliament, what democracy are we talking about? And don't they become super legislatures? Isn't that not the fact? So, that's the question number two. Is Mr. Nishikan Dubey bothered about democracy? Is Mr. Nishikan Dubey bothered about the legislature?

[00:06:03] Or is Mr. Nishikan Dubey bothered about his own political party? His own political interest! The interest of his party that is running the government in the center. And this entire blame is put on the Supreme Court. Number two. Number three.

[00:06:29] He says that the Supreme Court is responsible for religious wars. The Chief Justice of India, Sanjeev Khanna, is responsible for civil wars happening in this country. You know, I don't see any civil wars happening in this country as yet. And I feel that Mr. Nishikan Dubey is doing a huge disservice to his own party leader, Mr. Narendra Modi.

[00:06:58] You see, I'll tell you what I mean by that. What I mean by that is, you see, a civil war happens when there is no strong leadership in the center. When the central leadership is weak, when the central leadership doesn't exist, when the central leadership cannot control the country, that is when civil war happens in a country. According to Mr. Nishikan Dubey, which I don't see, he sees, there are a lot of civil wars happening within the country.

[00:07:29] Isn't he? Is he not saying that, therefore, his leader and our Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi is incapable or incompetent of handling civil wars? Handling local insurgencies? Is he? On the other hand, BJP says that, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is one of the most competent people to handle insurgencies, local insurgencies especially. He is the most competent person.

[00:07:58] And Mr. Nishikan Dubey says, wherever I see, wherever he sees, there are a lot of civil wars happening. So what exactly is he trying to say? Point number four. You see, he says that, the Chief Justice, Supreme Court is interfering in our democracy. You see, when does a court normally interfere?

[00:08:20] A court is not merely a machinery that is there to interpret law and then to read what is written and then put it to place. That is not the case. There is something called as justice in letter and spirit. Justice has to be dispensed in letter and spirit.

[00:08:47] So just because it is not written or just because something is written, therefore, you read that out, you don't need a judge for that. An AI can do it. An artificial intelligence unit can do it. You don't need a judge for that. Let me ask you a question. In this country, you have seen Arvin K. Jriwal having problems with the governor. You have seen Stalin, which is where this problem stemmed from, having a problem with his governor.

[00:09:15] You have seen Chief Ministers of the opposition parties having a problem with the governor not ascending to their bills. Show me one bill. Show me one bill.

[00:09:29] Since 2014 till date, show me one bill that the government, the ruling political dispensation or the ruling political dispensation party, Bharatiya Janata party run government in a state that one bill that this state government has passed or the central government has passed that didn't get assent from the president or the governor.

[00:09:52] So tell me when a political party and the government, which is part of the legislature, the government who heads, who runs the legislature, the government decisions are questioned. Wherein only the ruling dispensation, the ruling political party, their bill gets assent immediately.

[00:10:16] And the opposition, they have to fight for getting assent to their bills in their parliament stroke assembly. And the Supreme Court questions it. Do you think the Supreme Court is wrong? Do you think that the Supreme Court is not acting the way it should, that is in letter and in spirit? That's my point four. Now let's get into point five.

[00:10:45] On a lighter note. You know, I find this very strange. Mr. Nishikan Dubey is speaking about transgender and how the courts in India treated the issue of transgender differently than what Donald Trump in America feels about transgender. He quotes Donald Trump and says that Donald Trump said there are only two genders, male and female.

[00:11:13] There is nothing other than that. So he thinks that is right. What our justice system thinks may not be right. Is what I understood from what this was my take from what he said. Now I have a problem. Or I am confused. Who exactly does Mr. Nishikan Dubey consider his leader? Does he consider Donald Trump as his leader? Or does he consider Mr. Narendra Modi as his leader?

[00:11:43] I will tell you what I mean by that. He quotes Donald Trump and he says, Dekho, Donald Trump ne bula na? There is only two genders. Or Dekho, amara court kya bulta hai? He considers that right. But when it comes to India, he says there are civil wars. Under the able leadership of Mr. Narendra Modi, our good Prime Minister, he says there are civil wars like I said before. So who exactly is he considering his leader to be? Donald Trump or Narendra Modi?

[00:12:10] Ah, this is a question that I am sure the Bharatia Janata Party should be calling him and asking him, Kya ho gaya? What happened? Are you confused? Sab tiga na? So these are the points that I wanted to make. And before I conclude, let me revisit that statement by itself and tell you how flawed that statement of Mr. Nishikand Dube is.

[00:12:36] He says that the Chief Justice of India is responsible for civil wars in India. First of all, like I told you, I am not aware of any civil wars in India. Now, the point that he is trying to make is that a judgment given by the Supreme Court could cause civil war in our country. Possibly, I don't know, he may be referring to Manipur.

[00:13:03] He may be referring to Manipur where there was a high court judgment that ignited protests. But a high court judgment in our country, in independent India has not gone beyond protests. Not gone beyond protests. It has never turned into riots till such time that local political parties or political parties intervened.

[00:13:30] It is only political parties that can create a protest into a riot and a riot into whatever civil war. I, again, I tell you, I have never seen a civil war happen in our country. But it is only a political party who can ignite this kind of situations. A court cannot do that. What happened after Ramjan Mabhumi? Were there any riots? Why?

[00:13:58] Because there was a political party and the government didn't want it to happen. So there were no riots. Sabri Malay. After the Sabri Malay verdict, there was protest. But were there any riots? There were no riots. And that protest also, some places it turned violent is because of political parties. Political parties intervened. Political parties started fueling the fire. So what is Mr. Dubai talking about?

[00:14:28] Without political intervention, no riots can happen or no untoward incidents can happen in this country. Protest, I can accept it. But nothing more than that. Our country is far, far more civilized than what Mr. Dubai thinks. Unfortunately, our politicians are not that civilized. That's another fact.

[00:14:56] You see, the problem is, like everybody else, Mr. Nishikanth Dubai also has all the right to speak what he wants to. He is the citizen of this country. More importantly, he is the member of the parliament. You know, but the problem is, the fact that he is a member of the parliament, makes, or at least he should be more loyal to the parliament, the legislature,

[00:15:24] rather than purely speaking for his political party and the interest of his political party. You see, the interest of the country should take precedence over the interest of his political party. This is not what I am saying. His own party says it. Country first, party next, self last. His own party says it.

[00:15:50] So, if it is country first, then I need all of you to think and write down in your comment below. If you think country first, do you think that it would be fair for a governor or the president to sit on a bill, to not give assent to the bill, or to not even respond to the bill and delay the entire process of converting that bill into an act? Do you think it will be fair?

[00:16:19] Do you think it is good for the nation? And if it is not good for the nation, then whoever takes that decision from whichever corners, don't you think we should welcome it? This is the point that I want to leave you with. Till I see you next time. That's tomorrow at 10pm. Namaskar.