World law conference

The World Congress organised by the International Association of Constitutional Law in Athens this June was a stimulating experience...

The World Congress organised by the International Association of Constitutional Law in Athens this June was a stimulating experience. Delegates and invitees from 70 countries participated. I was the only Indian. The subjects for discussions were wide-ranging 8212; for instance, judicial review of politically sensitive questions. The consensus was that if the decision, though political in character, had legal implications and prejudicially affected a person8217;s human rights, for example, a racially discriminatory immigration policy decision, judicial review was not barred. The audience was informed that our Supreme Court had not accepted the political question doctrine as an ipso facto bar to judicial review. The Israeli Supreme Court has taken a similar view.

Another topic that generated lively discussion was 8216;Religion, State and Society8217;, which examined the relationship between religion and the state in view of the recent world developments and their implications for constitutions and constitutionalism. The participants at this session were professors from Singapore, Morocco and Greece, a federal judge of the US Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, and former president of the Constitutional Court, Italy.

Another subject was 8216;Limits on Power to revise a Constitution8217;. The audience was much interested in the basic structure doctrine propounded by our Supreme Court. I got numerous requests for the citation of Kesavanand Bharti. The topic 8216;Balancing and Proportionality in Constitutional Review8217; brought out fascinating facets of this doctrine, which is gaining ground in the Human Rights Court at Strasbourg and in Great Britain and other European countries. Incidentally, Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri had hinted at this concept in his landmark judgment in the V.G. Row case in 1952, when this doctrine was hardly known in Britain and in other jurisdictions.

There were excellent presentations amongst others by Ronald Dwarkin, Lord David Hope of the House of Lords, and Judge Lech Garlicki of the European Human Rights Court. The conference did not leave much time for sightseeing, except for a visit to the magnificent Acropolis.

Knighthood for Rushdie

The Queen8217;s Birthday Honours List had some remarkable names. One is Oleg Gordievsky, who acted as a double agent while serving as KGB bureau chief in London. On suspicion, he was recalled to Russia, from where he fled, taking a train to the Finnish border from where he was smuggled into the West in a British embassy car. The information he passed on to British MI6 led to the expulsion of 25 Soviet agents from Britain. No one can accuse the Queen of ingratitude, even if it be to reward treachery. Shami Chakrabarti, a young barrister and the dynamic director of the human rights group Liberty, who has been a constant critic of the government, was a worthy recipient. Her reaction was typical: 8220;I am not the most predictable choice and no one was more surprised than me.8221; Tolerance of criticism underlies this award, which is heartening.

Salman Rushdie received a knighthood for services to literature, not for his book, The Satanic Verses, which understandably is offensive and hurtful to the religious sentiments of the Muslims who take their religion seriously. Curiously, secular India was the first country to ban The Satanic Verses. Rushdie8217;s award has led to calls for execution of the fatwa against him. It has provoked riots and demonstrations in Iran and Pakistan because the knighthood is considered an insult to Islam. This is ridiculous. A prize of 80,000 pounds has been put by some persons on Rushdie8217;s head, which is despicable. Right-thinking Muslims should condemn rather than explain away such reactions, the acme of intolerance and fanaticism. Why is it forgotten that Rushdie is also the author of Midnight8217;s Children and The Moor8217;s Last Sigh, which have fine literary qualities.

Perils of short skirts

Women of a major law firm in London have been warned about wearing skirts while taking the glass lift in the office because they would be showing more than they would have liked to diners on the ground floor and thereby inadvertently 8216;entertaining8217; them. No such problems can arise in the case of jeans or salwar kameez or a traditional sari.