NEW DELHI: The right to information is crucial for citizens to effectively participate in elections, a Supreme Court judge who was part of the electoral bonds verdict has said.
Justice B R Gavai, who is in line to be the Chief Justice of India next year, spoke on how an informed citizenry is important for democracy, in his lecture on Tuesday at the United States of America’s Columbia University’s Law School
“In a very recent judgment on the validity of anonymous electoral bonds, the Supreme Court held that disclosure of information on electoral bonds to the voter cannot be restricted on the grounds of the informational privacy of the financial contributions to political parties.The expansion of the freedom to speech and expression to include the right to information is a crucial recognition for the citizenry to effectively participate in the elections, which, in turn, is an intrinsic feature of democracy,”
In his address on the theme of “75 years of Transformative Constitutionalism” justice Gavai also paid homage to Dr BR Ambedkar, who is a famous alumni of Columbia University.
The judge – who will be only the second person from Scheduled Caste (SC) community to take over as the CJI in the court’s history, began his lecture by noting that “It is only because of Dr. Ambedkar and the Constitution of India that I have reached this position” and expanded on his views about the role of India’s Supreme Court over the years.
Justice Gavai was part of the Constitution Bench that set aside the 2018 electoral bond (EB) scheme last month. Before a rapt audience, the senior judge outlined how the Supreme Court has “underscored the necessity of the compliance of the electoral process with the principles of the Constitution and the laws for the success of democracy. In doing so, it has repeatedly stressed on free and fair participation of voters in the electoral process.”
He pointed out that earlier too it was the apex court that declared that voters have a right to have information about the antecedens, including the criminal past of candidates contesting elections, citing a landmark 2002 verdict by the apex court.
The judge also underlined that it is “the duty of the courts to ensure that the law remains relevant amid shifting societal norms, and when faced with multiple interpretations, the courts opt for the one that best advances the constitutional values. Central to this transformative ethos is the role of the Supreme Court, which has to act as the custodian of the Constitution and the ultimate arbiter of justice.”
Justice Gavai elaborated on the progress made by both the Indian legislature and the SC over the last 75 years to give full expression to the transformative nature of the Constitution of India.
“The Constitution of India is evidence of the transformation of the governance structure in India from colonialism to democracy and from the ‘order of the Queen’ to the ‘will of the people’…….Since its inception, the Indian Constitution has been hailed as a transformative document that seeks to uphold justice, equality and dignity for all citizens” the judge underlined.
The judge gave two examples to law students, professors and even judges of Unites States who attended the event. In the landmark decision of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the rights of the LGBTIQ++ community that were not explicitly provided for in the Constitution. “It expounded the concept of transformative constitutionalism with regard to the Indian Constitution as its ability to adapt and transform with the changing needs of the times,” he said.
Giving another example the SC judge explained how in the “context of changing and evolving times, the Supreme Court took note of the technological advancement in the contemporary era, as against at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and declared privacy to be a fundamental right.”
It observed that the relevance of the Constitution “lies precisely in its ability to allow succeeding generations to apply the principles on which it has been founded to find innovative solutions to intractable problems of their times” and “expanded the right of privacy to include informational privacy and advocated for a data protection regime,” justice Gavai added.
Justice B R Gavai, who is in line to be the Chief Justice of India next year, spoke on how an informed citizenry is important for democracy, in his lecture on Tuesday at the United States of America’s Columbia University’s Law School
“In a very recent judgment on the validity of anonymous electoral bonds, the Supreme Court held that disclosure of information on electoral bonds to the voter cannot be restricted on the grounds of the informational privacy of the financial contributions to political parties.The expansion of the freedom to speech and expression to include the right to information is a crucial recognition for the citizenry to effectively participate in the elections, which, in turn, is an intrinsic feature of democracy,”
In his address on the theme of “75 years of Transformative Constitutionalism” justice Gavai also paid homage to Dr BR Ambedkar, who is a famous alumni of Columbia University.
The judge – who will be only the second person from Scheduled Caste (SC) community to take over as the CJI in the court’s history, began his lecture by noting that “It is only because of Dr. Ambedkar and the Constitution of India that I have reached this position” and expanded on his views about the role of India’s Supreme Court over the years.
Justice Gavai was part of the Constitution Bench that set aside the 2018 electoral bond (EB) scheme last month. Before a rapt audience, the senior judge outlined how the Supreme Court has “underscored the necessity of the compliance of the electoral process with the principles of the Constitution and the laws for the success of democracy. In doing so, it has repeatedly stressed on free and fair participation of voters in the electoral process.”
He pointed out that earlier too it was the apex court that declared that voters have a right to have information about the antecedens, including the criminal past of candidates contesting elections, citing a landmark 2002 verdict by the apex court.
The judge also underlined that it is “the duty of the courts to ensure that the law remains relevant amid shifting societal norms, and when faced with multiple interpretations, the courts opt for the one that best advances the constitutional values. Central to this transformative ethos is the role of the Supreme Court, which has to act as the custodian of the Constitution and the ultimate arbiter of justice.”
Justice Gavai elaborated on the progress made by both the Indian legislature and the SC over the last 75 years to give full expression to the transformative nature of the Constitution of India.
“The Constitution of India is evidence of the transformation of the governance structure in India from colonialism to democracy and from the ‘order of the Queen’ to the ‘will of the people’…….Since its inception, the Indian Constitution has been hailed as a transformative document that seeks to uphold justice, equality and dignity for all citizens” the judge underlined.
The judge gave two examples to law students, professors and even judges of Unites States who attended the event. In the landmark decision of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the rights of the LGBTIQ++ community that were not explicitly provided for in the Constitution. “It expounded the concept of transformative constitutionalism with regard to the Indian Constitution as its ability to adapt and transform with the changing needs of the times,” he said.
Giving another example the SC judge explained how in the “context of changing and evolving times, the Supreme Court took note of the technological advancement in the contemporary era, as against at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and declared privacy to be a fundamental right.”
It observed that the relevance of the Constitution “lies precisely in its ability to allow succeeding generations to apply the principles on which it has been founded to find innovative solutions to intractable problems of their times” and “expanded the right of privacy to include informational privacy and advocated for a data protection regime,” justice Gavai added.
