The Statement which is made by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in Rajya Sabha yesterday wherein it doubted the basic structure doctrine came up for discussion before the Supreme Court during the hearing of the Article 370 case.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner contended before the constitutional bench that the manner in which the Centre abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be justified, thus, unless the new jurisprudence comes to light that they can do whatever they like as long as they have majority.
Further, the counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stated that now one of your esteemed colleagues has said that in fact basic structure theory is also doubtful.
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud while responding to Sibal stated that, Mr Sibal, when you refer to a colleague, you have to refer to sitting colleague. Once this court a cease to be judges, whatever we say, their opinions, they are not binding
However, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta interjected to say that the proceedings which are initiated in the Parliament cannot be discussed before the Court as the Parliament does not discuss what goes on in courts. Therefore, Mr Sibal in the case addressed this here that since he was not there in the Parliament yesterday. You should have responded in the Parliament.
Ranjan Gogoi, who was being nominated as the member of the Rajya Sabha in March 2020 after his retirement as the CJI in November 2019, made his maiden speech in the Rajya Sabha, in order to support the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill 2023, wherein seeking to dilute the powers of the elected government of Delhi over services.
It has also been stated by Gogoi that the basic structure doctrine has the doubtful jurisprudence.
