These are highly insensitive and irresponsible statements by a person who's holding a constitutional position on whom the entire country looks upon, looks up to. Now, having made these kind of, you know, statements, frankly, in the first instance, he should have apologized to the youth of the country. And secondly, yesterday, what he said the day before was equally irresponsible. Unfortunately, their approach, jurisprudential approach is, I would say, is not up to the mark. This is not the jurisprudential... That's mild language. It's distressing. It's disturbing. It lets down the constitution. It's more than just not up to the mark. Not just the constitution. It is letting down the law, let down by themselves since 1950. If Ramesh Thapar in 1950 said you must intervene, then you are in 2026. You are not willing to follow that. And you still say this is not irresponsible. I'm asking that for the sixth time. And mind you, under Article 141, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is law of the land. It's binding on Supreme Court itself. I repeat my question for the seventh time. You still believe that the refusal to take up the case was not irresponsible? I would not use the word irresponsible. I would say it is unfortunate, it is sad. Those are euphemisms. Yes. Are you shying away from being critical of judges? Well, I am also having sometimes, you know, a little caveat about my words that I use. in the light of what we've discussed dushyant abhi what's your assessment of chief justice surya khan well i mean as a chief justice i must say that he has disappointed us i am disappointed i am particularly very disappointed because i had expected him to you know, be much, much more stronger, much more, you know, protecting the Constitution and citizens and keeping a very strong check on the executive and the parliament. But I must say that my hopes have been belied by him. Hi, I'm Karan Thapar. Over the last few years, I hope you've been watching my program, The Interview on the Wire. During that period, I've interviewed doctors, politicians, businessmen, scientists, authors, and even the occasional Nobel laureate. For me it's been exciting. I hope it's been enjoyable for you. But these, as you know, are tough times and if this program is going to remain bold, independent and sometimes even defiant, then I think we need your support. At the end of the day, it's a truism, but editorial independence is best defended by the viewers. So if you would like this program to remain the way it is, forthright outspoken and interesting then would you consider supporting us All you have to do is to click on the description at the bottom But more than anything else I hope you will continue to watch the interview Your viewership means an awful lot to me. Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. On Wednesday, when a lawyer attempted to convince the Supreme Court to admit a case about how the fundamental rights of young students had been breached when they were beaten up by the police and miscreants, the Chief Justice refused to take it up. He said, don't waste our time, don't waste your time. So today we ask, what should we make of that response? Does it undermine our constitutional fundamental rights? Does it weaken the Supreme Court's duty to protect those rights? Does it negate the power of Article 32, which was drafted to defend those rights? And how would Dr. Ambedkar view all of this? Those are the issues I shall raise with one of India's most highly regarded constitutional lawyers and a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dushyant Dave. Dushyant Dave, on Wednesday the 22nd, when a lawyer asked the Chief Justice to admit a case regarding the way young students had been beaten up by the police and miscreants, the Chief Justice said, don't waste our time, don't waste your time. And he refused to watch videos of the violence, saying, we are not interested in videos we don't have time to watch. How do you respond to the Chief Justice's comments? Well, before I respond to that, I must say one thing, that the Chief Justice himself should have suomoto taken cognizance of the matter. First thing in the morning at 10.30 when he said, a day after the students were brutally laity charged by the police. That is the constitutional duty that the Chief Justice has under the oath that he has taken. You know, as you know, you know, Karan, unlike most constitutions in the world, our constitution in its schedule provides a constitutional oath for all these high dignitaries, constitutional, you know, office holders like prime minister, members of parliament, members of assembly, ministers and chief justice and judges. Now, once you take that oath, you to uphold the constitution, it was his bounden duty to have issued a suomoto notice to the government, to the Delhi police. saying that by afternoon 2.45, let me know what you have done, why you have done. So unfortunately what is really happening today Karan time has come when before every judge in this court we must place the portrait of the greatest of the judges who stood for us during the emergency. You know whom I mean. So unless we put that, Justice HR Khanna, unless we put his portrait before every judge in the country because this is nothing but repetition of ADM Jabalpur failure by the supreme court during emergency and you know not only did the chief justice fail to take up the matter suomoto on his own he actually refused to take it up when he was asked to do so don't waste our time don't waste your time we are not interested in videos we don't have time to watch what do you make of that response i would say you know two things one that these are very insensitive comments like the insensitive comment that he made in the on the first instance uh saying that you know unemployed youth are like cockroaches they are a burden on the system which led to actual you know birth of the cockroach janta party these are a highly insensitive and irresponsible statements by a person who's holding a constitutional position on whom the entire country looks upon looks up to now having made this kind of you know statements frankly in the first instance he should have apologized to the youth of the country and And secondly, yesterday what he said the day before was equally irresponsible. There is what is, as I see it, and, you know, I grew up in a time when, you know, judges were far more sober, poised, you know, they even had a self-control. There is a kind of a verbal diarrhea which is now affecting judges across the country. And they make completely irresponsible, insensitive and unwarranted statements again and again, many a times on general issues, many a times on the matters before them. Can I clarify? You used the word irresponsible three times. Are you saying that the refusal to take up the case when he was asked to do so was irresponsible of the Chief Justice? Well, I won't call it irresponsible. I said his statements were irresponsible. But his refusal to take it up was definitely a failure of constitutional duty cast upon it. Because, you know, right from 1950, when Ramesh Thapar's judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, Supreme Court said categorically that we must intervene when fundamental rights of citizens are infringed and applications are made before us. We cannot fail to intervene. Now this is the law and that law has been followed by Constitution benches time and again Unfortunately these judges have just no idea about the constitution you know constitutional morality constitutional values constitutional assembly constituent assembly debates and the you know thought process which went behind making the constitution see at a time when constitution was made before we go into the details of how the constitution was made and i'll come to those in a a moment's time because they're important. Let's first focus on exactly what happened on Wednesday the 22nd. The lawyer was asking the Supreme Court to take up a case concerning the fundamental rights of young citizens, but the Chief Justice refused to do so. On the other hand, Dr. Ambedkar considered the Constitution's fundamental rights to be the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual. How would Dr. Ambedkar view the Chief Justice's refusal to take up the case? Well, Dr. Ambedkar also said that if I had to put my finger on one article of the Constitution, which is most important, which is the heart and soul of the Constitution, it is Article 32. Now, it is that Article 32 under which Chief Justice was moved by this lawyer. Chief Justice therefore had a bounden duty as Supreme Court itself has held again and again. And I would call it a pious duty because after all you are the protector of the fundamental rights of citizens. You are the guardian and right to move the Supreme Court is base, you know, basic structure. You can't, you know, run away from this and make this kind of irresponsible statement. I no time. What do you mean you have no time? You have world of a time. You have time to travel world across and you know address people across the world. You have time to every weekend go and give lectures. You have time to take up matters like NCERT matter where nothing was said. There was a genuine discussion about you know corruption in judiciary and you made such a dance and song in it and threatened the government with all kinds of consequences. I don't think Chief Justice is really and i'm surprised because i have appeared before justice uh you know surya khan many a times before i quit a practice last year and i found him to be a very good very sensitive judge and he wasn't in this case he was not sensitive he was insensitive no i i feel something happens when they sit on the chair of the chief justice we have been seeing this since deepak mishra took as Chief Justice after Modi government came in. Each one of them unfortunately has failed us, barring a short span where Lalit and Khanna were Chief Justice. You made a very compelling case for the audience to conclude that the Chief Justice behaved irresponsibly when he took up the case. Do you want to reconsider that question? No. Did he behave irresponsibly because you clearly argued that very convincingly. Yeah, I am.
