On 9/13/07, Ajay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ** *'Executive cannot act independently of Parliament on nuclear deal' *the hindu 13/09/07 * *http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/13/stories/2007091354511100.htm*
*** *Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.B. Sawant, former judges of the Supreme Court of India, and Justice H. Suresh, former judge of the Bombay High Court, have issued a statement on the powers of the Executive with reference to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The statement is...* ** * ------------------------<<<<<<<>>>>>>>----------------------* b p jeevan reddy, former judge of our supreme court, as well as the former chairman of the law commission, has raised this crucial constitutional aspect, earlier: "*There is no such thing as a 'prerogative power' of the executive, immune from parliamentary scrutiny*", he writes in the hindu of aug 10, 2007. nothing has come of the several attempts by parliamentarians like chitta basu, veerendra kumar and m a baby et al, to ensure that all international treaties or agreements shall be laid before the parliament prior to the implementation of such agreement. especially, in a scenario in which the national security adviser is alleged of having acted thus: "On several occasions, officials came to him with queries saying a *political mandate* might be needed. For instance, on the US requirement on retaining the right to demand return of US-origin material were India to test a nuclear device, there was near unanimity that a *mandate from the Cabinet would be needed*. However, *the buck stopped with Narayanan* *who decided*that this right could be included in the agreement, with several conditions." - pranab dhal samanta in an adulatory piece: 'the n-team' (http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/207333.html<http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/207333.html> ), the indian express of july 29, 2007- shouldn't this, if true, open up public debate? such patrician contempt for parliamentarians is reflected in the words of our ambassador to the u s, who referred to them as 'headless chickens', which he later palavered as referring to the media, a convenient whipping child on such occasions. shouldn't elected representatives of the people be privy to such decisions, which challenge the very sovereign character of our republic? as brahma chellaney, the strategic affairs analyst has observed: "It hardly goes to the *credit of Indian democracy that that the executive has an untrammeled right to conclude and ratify international pacts without parliamentary approval*" - times of india of aug 30, 2007. also wouldn't it be paradoxical for the deal to stand mandatory scrutiny before both the chambers of the u s, without a similar joint approval by both our houses of parliament? all of them echo the strident democratic sentiment of our people: *'the sovereignty of our parliament is non-negotiable*', and they shall be heard. vinceramos, sudhir (*emphases added*) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
