Supreme Court takes exception to Attorney General’ rights remarks on fundamental rights

Complimenting the court for its work in ecology conservation, Venugopal added that the judges had created many unenforceable rights. As many as 30 fundamental rights had been read into Article 21 and these could never be implemented totally, he said.

To this, Justice Chandrachud said it was the government’s duty to implement the rights. Stating that the rights could be enforced, he said, “We enforced the right of environment. Our brother judge Justice A K Sikri ensured that we could breathe during Diwali.”

The AG referred to the court verdict banning liquor vends within 500 metres of highways, saying that lakhs had lost jobs because of it. Justice Chandrachud was part of the bench that authored the verdict. The judge replied, “You have not read my order. It was your (Centre’s) policy that we endorsed.”

“Our policy was 100 metres,” replied Venugopal.

The CJI intervened, saying the “fine balance” between the judiciary and executive had to be maintained. He said the government could not say “subject matter is being discussed in Parliament, so court should stay away”.

The court would act independently and may appoint a committee to help it with the question in consideration, he added.

The issue of whether a parliamentary panel report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings had arisen after the petitioners referred to the 81st Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee, issued on December 22, 2014, indicting some pharma firms over trials of the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine.

On the issue, the AG said, “It would be a breach of privilege of Parliament to judicially scrutinise and/or review these reports (of Parliamentary committees) for any purpose whatsoever.”