Offstumped and Acorn have rightly raised the issue of the UPA-Left committee sitting over the nuclear deal as some kind of a final decision maker on the country’s stand on the nuclear deal.
Isn’t the panel ["UPA-Left joint mechanism on nuclear deal"] itself extra-constitutional ? It is not a mere political meeting though they seem to be inviting people as if they had some governmental authority for the same. Isn’t it a mere political eyewash ?
It isn’t a joint parliamentary committee or the like. If it were then a challenge in the court on its composition would have been possible under the Rules of either of the Houses of Parliament.
What is significant though is the fact that a request by the BJP for the setting up of a joint parliamentary committee was summarily rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. In this backdrop it is funny as to how a “panel” has now been set up.
So Parliament has really been left out of the whole ‘discussion’ or ’scrutiny’.
In our Constitution, the power to enter into treaties figures in the Union List that which lists Parliaments exclusive domain vide Article 246. More significantly Article 73 extends the executive power of the Union Government to all matters on which Parliament can legislate. Further for implementing any treaty, Parliament under Article 253 can legislate on any item even under the State List. The problem lies with the fact that there is no specific provision mandating any procedural requirements for negotiating and ratifying of treaties.
Hence the exercise of this power has been considered to be a preserve of the executive, in view of Article 73 which extends its authority over the subjects included in the Union List.
Justice Krishna Iyer while referring to the recommendations of the National Commission for the Review of the Constitution rightly made this an issue in the wake of GATT : “The relevant questions are: “What is the impact of treaty-making power conferred by Article 253 of the Constitution of India and Entry 14 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule on the federal structure and jural architecture of the nation? To whom does this power ultimately belong - to the executive or to Parliament or to a people’s referendum? If it is the power of the executive, is it subject to parliamentary control or supervision?” “.
More interestingly, there is a PIL pending in the SC on this issue, filed in September 2006. I seriously think that the time is ripe for someone to intervene in this petition in the backdrop of the nuclear deal and the Court might be forced to hear it on an urgent basis. Perhaps another independent petition might also help, which could be heard along with the existing PIL.
Thus, in my view the call for a challenge in the Supreme Court by Acorn is with due merit, though it would finally depend on the approach of the Court; whether it does take a pro-active stand or whether it shows a hands-off attitude in view of the age old ‘Act of State’ principle.
Nonetheless, the matter to me seems worth a challenge.
Content © Lex
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme designed by The Design Canopy
19 queries.
5.986 seconds.
[...] was the attempt to delay the Nuke deal by announcing the committee between congress and communists to discuss the deal to buy time, which was opposed by the opposition who preferred a JPC and hence [...]