| Font Size - |
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the government from signing a treaty (without approval of Parliament)," a Bench headed by the Chief Justice said.
The Bench was hearing a PIL filed by a Bangluru-based lawyer, M Ravi Prakash, who contended that the Centre could not enter into an agreement or a treaty with a foreign state without getting the nod from Parliament.
"The treaty-making power and foreign affairs power is exclusively within the domain of the Parliament, therefore legislation is required before the proposed agreement for nuclear co-operation with US which infringes on the sovereignty of the nation," he said.
The Bench, however, was not satisfied with his contention and asked him to show a provision of law which said that Parliament's approval was mandatory for such agreement.
"Hundreds of treaties are being signed by the government. Is there any provision which prevents the government from entering into it," the Bench said.
"In all treaties like WTO, GATT or others you surrender some rights and gain some rights," the Bench observed when the advocate said that after this agreement the country would lose its power to conduct nuclear test which would have serious implication on the security of the nation.
The SC earlier had dismissed two similar petitions which had sought to restrain the government from going ahead with the Indo-US civil nuclear deal on the ground that these were ‘policy matters’ and it could not examine them.
| Bookmark this Page |
|
RatingAs known that democratic Govt is by the people,of the people and for the people,keeping this in view approval from the parliament is most necessary before the Govt goes into any deal or adopts a policy which involves most serious/important interests of the Nation.Such deals can be done only with 2/3 majority votes in the Parliament.One may think it feesible,perhaps,only if there was one party Govt but a weak and shaky govt like UPA which has dozens small parties in alliance can never promise justifiably unbiased approach aimed at only retaining power and not for people's interests or nation's concerns.As its known Indian justice system and SC are there to serve their immidiate bosses and are simply corrupt like this Govt,UPA.They had been manipulating constitution and its laws to their taste and desires.Indo-US deal or no deal is not the problem but consent of the people of the Nation is must and that is possible only through Parliament approval.It would be foolish to compare treaties of WTO and GATT etc with this Nuclear energy Deal which can cause and prove dangerous to the nation's security and endanger its Defence.This may become an instrument of suppression and blackmail for the US.Moreover being dependent means surrender and losing independent policies and actions.Let us not forget even Russia,India's oldest friend and major weapon supplier,is no more reliable partner and has changed the trend to exploit India's needs and has started with blackmailing tricks.Sure international deals and exchange of technology has to be there but not at the cost/risk of Nation's sovereignity and security.This action by SC is other world entrusting despotic powers to the Govt which is so weak that it can't hold power without the help/support of few communists goons,who are confirmed anti-nation elements.
Sanjay, get your facts straight..The nuclear deal does not prevent India from continuing with its Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) research. In fact, India can build commercial Thorium based FBR only by 2020. Also as per the deal, India FBRs will NOT be under IAEA safeguard or international inspection.
AHWR; also thorium based which will be made on the eleventh plan already efforts to build is being made.By 2010 Fast breeder reacter being completed………You said thorium based breeder reactors by 2020 that is third generation plus, maybe forth generation that will give clean energy, without risk of meltdown, plus it have near no pollution. As you said it will be built 2020, Cant we wait? Instead of going for this first generation, string attached, polluting, risk of melt down, uranium based tech. which we have no guarantee of receiving and if received new reactors then wait ten years, but we are guaranted inspection, now.....Third point: It is called a slipper slope. First, we allow inspection into the country, all reprocessing will be inspected; maybe allegation that uranium diverted to the breeder program, and therefore sanction will be incurred by dependency on uranium the breeder program comes under inspected. Spying and espionage cannot be ruled out too with so many inspectors running around loose. Then we allow the right of return of nuclear material, and reprocessing their nuclear waste. You fail to answer why inspection for what reason? For first generation uranium tech. Insanity isn't it?
Last we have enough uranium for our program. "He ruled out India being short on uranium. "We have sufficient uranium to support 10,000 mw. In fact, this year itself, uranium production will be doubled", he said. Dr S Banerjee, Director, BARC " http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=364831
So it is not uranium...................We should sell our fast breeder reactor (second generation to any country, Sale our thorium technology to any country. All these NSG, NPT,CTBT, will fail. Oh course the will learn some respect.Even china has yet to have a breeder reactor, which we have.So by 2010 we will have a fast breeder producing 500MWe, which couples with PHWR can produce 500,000MWe. In 11th plan maybe AHWR, and maybe in next plan a thorium based Breeder reactor. Why would any wish to hobble our country with inspection without need or guarantee?So we don't progress
OUR SC has to learn from the U.S., In the U.S., eveen the President CANNOT do anything without nthe Congress approval. Congress in the U.S. means and eauqal to our lok Sabha...
Why should our SC learn from the US on policy matters? Shouldn't it be guided primarily by the constitution? The SC is doing exactly what it is suppposed to do.
Well you miss-informed people of a coolie education. It is well known the deal allows perpetual inspection of nuclear plants without any guarantee of any nuclear supply, as it stands our country is being destroyed by fundamentalist. We are having our country eroded by scoundrel, who is implementing quotas in education, 15% funding for Muslims, and having a cross on the 2 rupee coin.Second for those uneducated people we are capable of producing 500.000 MWe from our fast breeder reactors which we are building, without an increase in uranium. But that would be dangerous to the west because it would mean we will produce unlimited supply of plutonium, that stuff that is used in thermonuclear warheads. So it is understood, the west wants us to use the first generation uranium technology instead of this deadly reactor that will sift the balance of power in India's favor.Think being a fool who does not their own capabilities, who lets those scoundrel that belong in jail to rule, what happens to your self respect, when criminals rule, and pretender abound, as to why people accept and look for something other then self reliance after so many years of sanctions. Why do you think there is something great in foreign?
Sanjay, get your facts straight..The nuclear deal does not prevent India from continuing with its Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) research. In fact, India can build commercial Thorium based FBR only by 2020. Also as per the deal, India's FBRs will NOT be under IAEA safeguard or international inspection.
100% should seek approval, if they have the confidence of parliament, because of allowing foreign inspector into India and the other intrusive obligation required of India. Other countries like USA legislator must ratify the treaty before it takes affect, we shouldincoperate some cheaking system such as parliment approval, too. ................CPM are barking dogs one hand supports the government the other fights with the government, everyone knows without commies the governmen would not survive. Therefore you should know really they are helping the government by barking. One time I was watching interview, as commies acted like opposition they hardly could give any strong point against the deal, but then they are acting like opposition.......... The main point is inspection of nuclear plants that are built by our own technology by foreigners. Second point is allowing nuclear plants that have been used to make the bomb under inspection, third major point is that when we are making second and third generation reactors, why would we depend on foreigners for first generation technology, and depend on them for uranium too, when it is know these reactors free us from the dependence of uranium?Last and final point is they do not garantee any supply of anything but we allow them prepetual insopection without garantee of supply. Sounds very foolish.
'Well' educated Sanjay is missing lots of facts as for as nuclear is concerned. Fast Breeder reactors usually run on mixed fuel of 20 % plutonium dioxide and 80% Uranium dioxide. Plutonium can be obtained by reprocessing spent Uranium fuel. Without Uranium there is no FBR. We have lots of Thorium but the technology is few decades away. Prime Minister Singh is speaking the truth when he says we can't afford to miss the nuclear bus if we want to be a big power!
Please read about our nuclear program before talking, it is shameless that people read nothing about program then they say they themselves are qualified . I will tell what the reports by our scientist other scientist say. We are also building an advance heavy water reactor third generation too which will utilize thorium. They have stated with this technology alone they can produce 500.000Mwe of energy.http://www.igcar.ernet.in/press_releases/press11.htm ...................."When the same uranium, which will support 10,000 MWe generating capacity in the PHWRs, comes out as spent fuel and we process that spent fuel into plutonium and residual uranium, and use it in the fast reactors, we will be able to go to electricity capacity which will be as large 5,00,000 MWe. This is due to the breeding potential of the fast reactors, using the plutonium-uranium cycle. That is the importance of the fast-breeder reactors under Indian conditions, compared to other countries. "MMS is not a scientist,PM will take a bus and probably an typical indian non-airconditioned bus if you unederstand what I mean, like the outdated ambassdor.
The simple fact is we do not have enough fuel to sustain the economic growth. US deal is the golden key which ends not only nuclear isolation but also paves way for similiar pacts with other nations. Lefts act like China's poodle and looks more like traitors of the nation. I truely believe commnists are our curse.
The communist parties objected computerization in Kerala in the 80's because the computers were coming from America. Now they are opposing Nuclear deal because the nuclear reactors are coming from America. Nice to see that SC is not falling into their trap..
We can live peacefully among those super power having nuclear arsenal but can we live peacefully among our own people who want to get rid of the union government on one ground or the other? Signing a nuclear deal would not make us inferior in any way. It only makes us a responsible country in the world politics.
There is no point in castigating the SC because its duty is to 'interpret' the law to see whether any executive/legislative action violated the letter and spirit of the constitution. As Karan pointed out the petitioner may have been a 'mole'. If majority of Indians are against the deal, they should petition to the governement and SC does not have any role in that. Political parties spearheading campaigns aganst the deal should take the lead. But unfortunately all political parties are playing politics not doing anything based on any conviction, it would seem.
BLESSINGS OF THE SC , TOLATE RAJIV GANDHI FOR THE BOFORS, AND SUCH HOAXES IN THE FUTURE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
"In all treaties like WTO, GATT or others you surrender some rights and gain some rights," the Bench observed when the advocate said that after this agreement the country would lose its power to conduct nuclear test which would have serious implication on the security of the nation.That is the flaw !!!! In a democracy people have the rights and people's will alone is supreme that is why we have to protect this freedom at all costs. In a representative democracy the representative takes the decision thinking that this will be in the best interests of the nation -- the people of the nation.Without these people only the ruling party the Sc and government will remain.Who will any decision be for ?The politicians and their vested interests? In a system which does not bother to go back to people and ask what they want, they will definitely do what is good for the politicians and not what is good for the people.All modern democracies excepting India which claims to be the most populous democracy have at one point or other gone back to people with an important question in the form of referendum.If the people do not want N deal so be it.But if the people do not want it and politicians want it then there is something wrong. It is important governments reflect people's will and not people and SC reflect governments will !!!!This we call as democracy .And democracy is superior to even Sc which is a product of democracy rather than the constitution .Now if the constitution is antidemocratic then peoples will is supreme.We do not have to surrender our rights.SC should not be asking people to surrender their rights which goes against the basic tenets of democracy
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the government from signing a treaty (without approval of Parliament)," a Bench headed by the Chief Justice said.There is nothing in the constitution which says the politician should ask the people either.So why is it still calling itself a democracy?If the constitution is bigger than the democracy why are we all voting?What the SC cannot do is to separate the people from their rights.Whatever affects the nation is the concern of the people whether SC wants it or not.Is the SC against people's right when it comes to a question of constitution?So why did the parliament uphold the constitution which it was not empowered to?Is the SC against democratic principles?
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the government from signing a treaty (without approval of Parliament)," a Bench headed by the Chief Justice said.There is nothing in the constitution which says the politician should ask the people either.So why is it still calling itself a democracy?If the constitution is bigger than the democracy why are we all voting?What the SC cannot do is to separate the people from their rights.Whatever affects the nation is the concern of the people whether SC wants it or not.Is the SC against people's right when it comes to a question of constitution?So why did the parliament uphold the constitution which it was not empowered to?Is the SC against democratic principles?
That's true.
It is very important for this type of deal need people sport,only parliament can pass this type deal.Thank you
The last few years have seen many issues of conflicts between the parliament and the judiciary claiming to be encroached by each other.Has the SC rules in this matter against the parlament it would have given another chance to parliament to cry foul by the law regulating agency.Rightly said by the SC there is no law restricting the government to sign any treaty without consulting the parliament.It is the principle of sepretion of power enscribed in our constitution which doesn't reqiure so to be done.It is also not practically possible for the apex executive body to ask parliament every time before sining any treaty with foreign nation.However the parliament and the judiciary both have the power and authority to check once the treaty is made and it is subject to execution.
The legitimately elected Govt should have the power to make deals which are good for the nation. Just because minority party like CPI wants to block the deal for their own selfish needs then center should not be required to get parlament's approval. The majority ruling party and the nominated Prime Minister and his govt should have such power otherwise how can govt function! MP's can criticize the deal with solid points, and govt should note their criticism. But Govt should not be restricted to make executive decision.
Mr. Ravi Kumar must be a supporter of the 123 deal, he wanted a ruling in favour of the government that is why he filed PIL on such prima facie wrong ground. The constitution does not debar government from seeking parliamentary ratification nor make it mandatory. The SC has unfortunately not made any distinction between hundreds of mundane treaties and the ones like 123 agreement, WTO which infringe upon the rights of Indian citizens. I believe such treaties should have mandatory ratification. Pandit Nehru had sought ratification from constituent assembly for his decision to remain in the Commonwealth. People look to the Supreme Court to protect their fundamental rights and the nation’s sovereignty.
If we are going by your argument, courts will be ruling, and the rest-from parliment to bueaurocrats-will be the "court-order-executives". The judges are simple "umpiers", not policy makers or breakers. And umpiers are only to follow what is writern in the law books. Creation of law books is the job of Parliment and executive. Judges must not carried away by unchecked PIL, nor they should not get the notion, that their domain is divine controlled. In a democracy, parliment is the supreme authority, and only people can change change partliment. Judges are mere umpiers. Yes, umpires are normally never interrupted in their decision-makings, but one should not get the impression that they are bigger than the game.
| Most Read Articles |
 |
