'No judiciary and legislature clash'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court had delivered two landmark judgments last week.

The first related to the expulsion of 12 MPs for accepting money for raising questions in the House.

The second was with regard to the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution which provided a shield for laws passed by the parliament and state legislatures to avid judicial review.

The two were seen as test cases in the battle between the highest court and parliament. The court had said that the expulsions were within the rights of parliament.

In an interview with Gulf News, senior Supreme Court lawyer and former additional solicitor general of India, Harish Salve said that the court had interpreted the Constitution correctly, and that it was not encroaching on the sphere of parliament and state legislatures. Excerpts from the interview:

Gulf News: What is the implication of the Supreme Court verdict with regard to the expulsion of members of parliament? Does this mean that the courts can judge the acts of legislatures with regard to its own privileges?

Harish Salve: The court is merely asserting that parliament has every right to expel members on grounds of misconduct. The court found that the procedure adopted by the parliament was fair, and there was no arbitrariness about it. It means that while the legislatures have right to expel members, they cannot impose unreasonable sentences.

Some time back, the Tamil Nadu Speaker had sentenced N.Ram, the editor of The Hindu, for breaching the privilege of the House. Ram went to the court on the plea that it violated his fundamental rights. The case is still pending in the court.

Does this mean that the legislatures have to follow the due process‚ even with regard to their own rules and regulations of business, and the court is not really questioning the absolute right of the legislatures?

Yes. That is right. The legislatures' right to set its own rules is not being questioned.

Does the judgement over the right to review laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution make that schedule irrelevant?

The court is saying once again that the laws placed under the Ninth Schedule should not violate the basic structure of the Constitution as contained in the provisions of the chapter on the Fundamental Rights.

What is the political implications of this verdict?

In a coalition era, where each party and group is trying to raise the level of rhetoric, the court is preserving caution and order. The Constitution is all about checks and balances, and the court is upholding this principle.

Does this verdict imply that the court will come in the way of legislation that is socially progressive?

In the case of reservations in educational institutions for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), all that the curt is asking the government is to provide the figures for the OBCs.

Q. The US Supreme Court is characterised as liberal or conservative based on its decisions. Is the Supreme Court of India liberal or conservative?

The Indian Supreme Court through all its decisions has shown itself to be liberal.

Q. There is a popular perception that of late that the court is engaged in judicial activism because the governments are not doing their job. For example, the introduction of CNG in Delhi's public transport was the result of a court order, while it is the job of government to take this decision.

The court did not act on its own. It was the government that had set up a statutory committee to suggest alternative fuel. And the committee had recommended CNG. The court had merely asked the government to implement the recommendations of the statutory committee.