Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar sparked a legal debate after he criticised the Supreme Court for setting a deadline for the President to clear Bills and the use of Article 142 to clear 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly without the approval of the Executive.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching News Today at 9pm. I'm Preeti Chaudhary.
00:03The big talking points this evening over the course of the next one hour.
00:06Top focus, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar takes on the top court of the country.
00:12Executive versus Judiciary debate once again really united by none other than the Vice President.
00:19On the other hand, we're also going to focus on the big American dream.
00:22Is that over for Indian students?
00:25All of that coming up. First up, allow me to take you through the headlines.
00:30West Bengal Governor in Malda, despite Mamta's appeal against the visit,
00:36NCW team meets violence victims who allege sexual assault by rioters.
00:44MK Stalin hits out at Amit Shah says no Shah can ever rule Tamil Nadu,
00:49says BJP's formula of breaking parties to form government won't work in the state.
00:53Language war hits up in Maharashtra after state implements national education policy.
01:02Sena, UBT, MNS hit out, says we are Hindus, not Hindi.
01:07DMK cries, we told you so, they will impose.
01:11Congress MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibbal responds to Vice President Dhankar over super parliament remark.
01:21Sibbal says president only titular head and judiciary must intervene if executive not doing its job.
01:28Politics escalates over Karnataka socio-economic survey after Siddharamaya says no one from cabinet of post-caste count.
01:40BJP accuses chief minister of trying to save his chair.
01:47Days after clash, Supreme Court states demolition notice against Nashik Dargah seeks report from Bombay High Court on non-listing of plea.
01:5633 Naxals surrender before security forces in Chhattisgarh's Sukhma district.
02:06Amit Shah urges hiding Naxals to surrender.
02:11Modi dials Musk, discusses collaboration strategy,
02:16holds talks on tech and innovation Modi says committed to advancing ties with U.S.
02:20and U.S. gives the ultimatum on Russia-Ukraine peace deal, says
02:28move on if no progress made.
02:33Trump seeks clarity on feasibility of minerals deal.
02:36All right, our top focus comes in with what the vice president said.
02:45The vice president of India, Jagdeep Dhankar, has emerged as one of the strongest voices,
02:50critiquing, critiquing, criticizing the Supreme Court,
02:52this time for setting deadlines for the president to clear bills
02:56and for invoking Article 142 to pass 10 bills cleared by the Tamil Nadu Assembly without executive assent.
03:04Take a look.
03:08Vice president Jagdeep Dhankar takes on the Supreme Court.
03:12Speaking at the valedictory function of the 6th Rajya Sabha internship program on Thursday,
03:18Dhankar hit out at the Apex Court,
03:20accusing the judiciary of overstepping constitutional boundaries.
03:23The government is accountable.
03:25There is a directive to the president?
03:29Are you recent judgment?
03:30Where are we heading?
03:39What is happening in the country?
03:42I never thought in my life I will have the occasion to see it.
03:46Dhankar was referring to a recent order by a two-judge Supreme Court bench
03:50that set time frames for governors and the president to decide on bills passed by state assemblies.
03:56The verdict came on a petition filed by the M.K. Stalin government against Tamil Nadu governor Arun Ravi
04:03who kept decisions on 10 bills pending for months.
04:07Dhankar slammed the court for using powers under Article 142 to deliver the judgment.
04:11Very contentious issues.
04:13Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces.
04:24Available to judiciary 24 into 7.
04:28My worries were at the very highest level.
04:33I never thought in my life I will have the occasion to see it.
04:37Under Article 142, the Supreme Court can pass orders beyond existing laws to ensure complete justice.
04:44Such orders are enforceable nationwide.
04:47The SC can also summon individuals, demand documents and punish for contempt.
04:53The vice president also questioned delays in the Justice Yashant Verma burnt cash case.
04:58It is now over a month, even if it is a can of worms, even if there are skeletons in the cupboard.
05:13Time to blow up the can.
05:17Time for its lid to go out.
05:20And time for the cupboard to collapse.
05:22Let the worms and skeletons be in public domain, so that clinging takes place.
05:34Over the last 10 years, the executive and the judiciary have faced off on many issues, including appointment of judges.
05:41The latest war of words comes even as the Apex Court takes up many political sensitive cases,
05:48like the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act.
05:50With Srishti Ojha, Bureau Report, India Today.
05:58All right, joining me right on top is Dr. Rabhishek Manu Singhvi.
06:01He's a fourth-term MP, Eminent Juris, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court.
06:05Also a member of the Congress, Senior Congress Leader.
06:09Also importantly, viewers, he has been the lead counsel in this case,
06:14where he represented the government of Tamil Nadu.
06:17Appreciate you taking the time out, Mr. Singhvi, and joining us.
06:19First up, there's been a fair amount of commentary, Mr. Singhvi, on if the Vice President was out of line.
06:27You know, many suggest it's a constitutional, largely a ceremonial post.
06:31Should he have made these comments?
06:32With the deepest and greatest respect and genuine respect to the Honorable Vice President,
06:40my answer is an emphatic no.
06:43He is the holder of high constitutional office,
06:47second in the warrant of precedence.
06:51And there is no occasion, no necessity, no requirement,
06:54no obligation to comment on all and sundry and issues like this.
06:59Does the President comment on this, Preeti?
07:03Have predecessor Vice Presidents commented routinely on such matters?
07:09Should the next person in the line of warrant of precedence, the Prime Minister, comment on such matters?
07:13My respectful answer is no.
07:17I think clearly it was uncalled for, unwarranted and unnecessary,
07:21before we come, of course, to the nitty-gritty of things like Article 142 and the case itself.
07:26But certainly, this was not…
07:29In fact, it is completely out of sync with the very high position
07:34which this is involved in the Vice President's post.
07:37Mr. Singhvi, you know, you had represented the Tamil Nadu government in the Supreme Court
07:42where you had argued that the governor's action violated the Constitution
07:46and in its verdict, the Supreme Court had held that Tamil Nadu's governor's reservation of 10 bills
07:50for President's assent is illegal and had used its extraordinary, you know, powers under Article 142.
07:57So in this particular case, if you're going point by point,
08:00you had Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, the Vice President,
08:02who actually stated, described Article 142 as, and I quote,
08:07nuclear missile against democratic forces,
08:11which allows the judiciary to act as a super parliament
08:14by enacting laws as seen in the case of Tamil Nadu.
08:18How do you respond to that characterization, Abhishek Madhu Singhvi?
08:22Before I use my own adjectives to deal with those very colorful adjectives you've just quoted,
08:28you judge and your viewers judge for yourself.
08:30142, let's just stick to the law first.
08:33We come to the facts later.
08:35142 was not created yesterday.
08:37It was not created for this case.
08:39142 was created by persons far wiser than all of us put together,
08:43our constitutional assembly.
08:45It was created by Vavasava Bhedkar and his drafting committee.
08:49It was created exclusively for the Supreme Court.
08:53It was deliberately and consciously stated not to be given to any other court in India,
08:57including any high court.
08:58The idea was that this is a sui generis, special, unique power to the apex court,
09:04who is the custodian of the trust of the entire nation,
09:08to do complete justice in very, very extreme cases or cases which deserve it from going beyond the mere letter of the law,
09:17to implement the spirit of the law, to do complete justice.
09:20Secondly, you must remember, Preeti, it is not an uncanalized power.
09:24It is not Jangal Raj.
09:25It is not chaotic.
09:26It is cribbed, canalized, circumscribed, conditioned by at least 20 to 40 major Supreme Court judgments over the 75-year-old journey.
09:36It is exercised on criteria laid down in those judgments.
09:40So, to suggest, all I can say is the missile is probably coming from elsewhere than the Supreme Court.
09:46The Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional power.
09:50When it strikes down law, when it strikes down executive action, when it strikes down governor's action,
09:56it routinely does it in 356, it is in Burmai.
10:00Can you call it a super parliament?
10:01I will come to the facts of this case and make good to you presently how, if at all there was an understatement of the law and the facts by the Supreme Court,
10:12everything said there was completely deserved.
10:15But as far as the law is concerned, I think this is clearly not justified language for a judgment.
10:25Dr. Singhvi, you know, the fact is, you were the lead counsel on this particular case.
10:29You've explained a bit on, you know, invoking section or article 142.
10:35On the other hand, what many suggest that possibly when it came down to the role of the governor,
10:41the top court was correct, but there has been a legal discourse which seems to suggest that when Mr. Dhankar objected to the court
10:49setting a three-month deadline to the president to act on bills claiming it undermines constitutional role.
10:56You know, that is a gray area.
10:58I will come to the president in a minute.
11:02The first primary question I ask myself and you and your viewers, none of these high constitutional authorities
11:09thought it right to comment on or chastise other constitutional authorities who sat on bills for one and a quarter years.
11:18In the case of Tamil Nadu, you are now chastising the Supreme Court.
11:23Was it right or wrong for a governor neither to pass the bill, assent to it, nor send it back?
11:30So, a decision not to decide became a decision.
11:33Now, look at the other step before I come to the president.
11:36In the first place, you don't decide.
11:38And in the first place, while it's pending with you, you do not also refer it to the president.
11:42The Tamil Nadu government goes to the court.
11:46Immediately, you send it back to the Tamil Nadu government.
11:48It requires the Tamil Nadu government to go to court for the governor to refer it back.
11:53When the Tamil Nadu government sends it a second time, you know that you are bound.
11:58So, you refer it to the president this time.
11:59Did when Baba Sahib said that institutions are only as good or bad as the governors or the persons or the man or woman who mans it.
12:10This is what he meant.
12:12The constitution can't tell the governor everything how to do it.
12:15It is the spirit which is being violated by high constitutional functionalities from Tamil Nadu to Bengal to Punjab.
12:22And many other states and it is happening particularly in opposition rule states where you are supposed to be the agent of the central government as if you are acting as some kind of a, you know, obstruction of barrier to governance.
12:36Now, let's come to the president.
12:39The structure of the articles of the constitution which deal with the assent to a bill by either the president or the governor are identical or almost identical.
12:49There is no difference.
12:50The only difference arises that the president cannot refer it further to a president.
12:55That is the difference with the governor.
12:57But as far as the time limit is concerned, if it is kosher to put a time limit for the governor, in what way is an article 142 misused if the same time limit is put for the president?
13:09It doesn't mean that the current president has done anything like that.
13:12As a matter of fact, with the current government, to imagine that the president would keep it pending for a year and a half would be unthinkable.
13:19But it is not unthinkable for an opposition to a state like Tamil Nadu.
13:23It is not unthinkable for states like West Bengal and Punjab.
13:26But in theory, why should a president sit on it?
13:29And literally one more thing.
13:31The governor who was involved in these 10 bills or whatever, 11 bills, all the bills fell squarely in list 2, which is exclusive state competence.
13:41There was no reason to hold it or then to refer it.
13:44There were local matters like municipalities or sewerage or this and that.
13:49So, really, you know, it's the spirit of how you operate the constitution which matters.
13:54And when all this is happening under your nose with the governors, why are high constitutional functionaries not commenting adversely on that gubernatorial overreach instead of chastising the Supreme Court?
14:07And, you know, the office of governor was intended by Baba Saab.
14:12He said there can't be two swords in one scabbard.
14:15Ek miyan mein do talwar nahi.
14:17The chief minister is the governor of that state in terms of governance.
14:21And you can't obstruct his governance by keeping his spending.
14:24The same applies to the central government and the president.
14:26Yes, I agree that the deemed ascent is not written in the constitution.
14:33Yes, I agree that three months or two months is not written in the constitution.
14:36But if 142 is not used for this, what is 142 created for?
14:40Why did Baba Saab and the constitution simply give this power exclusively as a unique power to the Supreme Court?
14:45Only for such situations where governance has been obstructed and stopped by persons who are entrusted with governance.
14:54So, who will guard the guardians?
14:55Who will govern the governance?
14:57Only the Supreme Court.
14:59Dr. Singh, the last two questions that I'd ask you.
15:02You know, the Tamil Nadu judgment has been, A, hailed historic by some, unprecedented also by many.
15:08Do you think this judgment is somewhere down the line going to set a precedent for, or the word it will shape, the state and center relationship, especially where opposition-governed states are concerned?
15:22Before I answer your question, five seconds on the fact that people forget what meticulous research industry and comprehensiveness went into this judgment.
15:30The bench more than once gave us detailed queries, nuances, issues, sought opinion of all, including the Attorney General on our side, got researchers put on each of those issues.
15:43A lot of pain and effort went into this.
15:44It's not a casual thing on which casual comments can be made.
15:48Secondly, absolutely, yes, it is already appreciated.
15:51It's a judgment of the Supreme Court, which under articles 141 and 142 is fully binding on everybody in this country, including the highest constitutional authorities.
15:59And they are obliged to implement it in letter and spirit.
16:02That's what 141, Red with 142 means.
16:05Thirdly, it is a clear message.
16:08A somewhat delayed, much desired, much necessary, vitally necessary message to all governors.
16:18You are not supporting agents of the central government.
16:22You are not there to obstruct governors.
16:26You are not there as a parallel chief minister.
16:29You are there to aid and assist governance and be the overall friend, philosopher and guide instead of being two swords in one scabbard, two chief ministers in one state.
16:40I think that larger message is also implicit in the judgment.
16:45But I would strongly support every word and the industry and the care and the caution which judgment is written.
16:54And unfortunately, I think some of the strong words used as adjectives about judgment are completely uncalled for, unjustified and unjustified.
17:00But the vice president, Dr. Singh, we did raise, which are shared by many, broader concerns about judicial accountability, you know, overreach or, you know, judicial activism.
17:13And on many accounts, be it the large hauls of cash that were found in a judge's house and the kind of action, you know, that was taken.
17:22Or even you've had the speaker or, you know, the former law minister Kiran Rajiju speak about the NJSE verdict or the collegium.
17:29So he has raised broader concerns, which many are speaking of today.
17:34First of all, with greatest respect, unfortunately, there is no connectivity in speaking in the same breath about this judgment and the episode involving Justice Verma.
17:47You can't begin to connect the North Pole and the South Pole for no reason at all.
17:52I don't understand how one reflects on the other in any remotest manner.
17:55It was equally inappropriate to link them.
17:58I'm saying so very clearly.
17:59Secondly, everybody knows that there is a procedure established, not created yesterday for you or me, or for Justice Verma.
18:06An in-house procedure has been in operation for decades.
18:10It is under that procedure that the Chief Justice of India has taken steps.
18:13Three vice persons, two Chief Justice and one Lady Judge of Seniority, are looking into it.
18:18The report will be out soon.
18:20Why should we suddenly change that procedure?
18:22Had that procedure not been followed by Yashwant Verma, is there any other law which the Honorable Vice President would want us to follow?
18:29How can you hearken to a system which is in existence being followed versus a non-existent system of no other system is available to do this?
18:39Yes, if you have, if you pass a law in future for these matters to go short of impeachment to the parliament, then that will be the law followed.
18:46In fact, I was chairman of a committee way back in 2011, a parliamentary standing committee, which recommended the Judicial Accountability Bill.
18:53That never became law.
18:55But till such time, it is the only in-house procedure which will govern.
18:58And lastly, it is not the time and place because the whole comment was on the judgment.
19:04It has nothing to do with the Yashwant Verma episode.
19:06But let us not be, let us hasten slowly.
19:11Let us not use a push-button system that Yashwant Verma episode means push-button and lo and behold, by a magical wand, you have NJAC.
19:20And all these hills vanish into thin air because of this magical wand called NJAC.
19:26Please don't use one to implement the other.
19:29Please don't use one to further some agenda which is other than relevant.
19:33All right, Dr. Singhvi, appreciate you taking the time out and joining us this evening.
19:39Thank you there.
19:40Let us quickly move on.
19:42We are joined right now by Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court Lawyer.
19:46My first question, sir, is what I asked Dr. Singhvi as well.
19:50Would you reckon the Vice President was out of line with the comments that he made regarding the top court of the country,
19:57keeping in mind that his position is largely ceremonial, constitutional?
20:03From what India was meant to be, what the framers of the Constitution expected things to be,
20:13and what was anticipated was that governors would be statesmen who would be above any politics,
20:24who would not be playing to political masters, as were speakers of the legislature in those days,
20:31answerable for the dignity of the House and not answering to political masters.
20:38It was with that intent that the framers of the Constitution gave the governors their powers,
20:45gave the speakers of the legislatures their powers as masters of the legislature.
20:50Unfortunately, over a period of time, and I'm sorry, it started as early as in the 1970s,
20:57both the governors and speakers became nothing more than puppets of their political masters,
21:05of the ruling party and power at the given time, who had appointed them,
21:08or of the majority House, of whom they were the representative and therefore became a speaker.
21:14Now, when you look at it that way, what do you do?
21:18Because the framers of the Constitution expected these people to act in accordance with the Constitution
21:25and to discharge their functions in accordance with the Constitution.
21:30Now, this is where the court comes in.
21:32I don't think it is a power exercise by the court.
21:36I think it is a discharge of its responsibility that the court has had to pass the kind of judgment that it did.
21:45The reason being that if a governor does not discharge his functions under the Constitution,
21:52it becomes a duty of the Constitutional Court,
21:57which has been charged with the function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution,
22:01to ensure that every constitutional functionary, every statutory functionary,
22:07functions in accordance with the Constitution.
22:09So I believe that the judgment of the Supreme Court was absolutely necessary and correct
22:15in the facts of the matter where a governor of a state has just told all progress of the state
22:21by acting in a manner which the Constitution does not envisage him to act,
22:27by not approving of bills and by doing so,
22:31I am sorry to say, brought the office of governor into a situation,
22:36into a position where the court was forced to interfere
22:39and in fact had to very clearly say that it is the duty of the governor
22:44to act in accordance with the Constitution.
22:47If he does not do so, we as a court will ensure that he does so.
22:52So, Mr. Sundaram, from the question that I asked you first,
22:55I concur, you do not agree with what the Vice President said,
22:59accusing the judiciary of judicial activism, overreach,
23:03and you know where he called out Article 142 as, you know,
23:08the judiciary acting like a super parliament.
23:12I said the Vice President is speaking from the expectation of the framers of the Constitution
23:20that these constitutional authorities will act in accordance with the Constitution.
23:23And he is really stating something which even the framers of the Constitution would have wanted,
23:29that the courts would not ever come into the realm of either the legislature or the executive,
23:35and that there was a base of separation of powers.
23:38So he is talking from a position of that.
23:41But please remember that taking an unconstitutional decision is no different
23:46than not taking a decision that you are meant to take under the Constitution.
23:53Both are equally correctable by judicial review,
23:57and what the Supreme Court has done is exercised its powers of judicial review,
24:02which has been given under the Constitution,
24:04to ensure that these people who have been charged with such constitutional functions
24:09act in accordance with the Constitution.
24:13And remember, inaction or not acting in accordance with the,
24:17or not acting as you are required to do under the Constitution
24:20is no different from acting against the Constitution.
24:25And the court has to interfere.
24:27And the court rightly passed the judgment that it did.
24:30All right, so Mr. Sundaram, allow me to go point by point.
24:34The Vice President called Article 142 a nuclear missile against democratic forces.
24:39He has gone on to criticize why it is being used frequently by the Supreme Court.
24:44Do you believe this characterization is justified,
24:47or is it Article 142 an essential tool for ensuring justice?
24:54Article 142 is to ensure that complete justice is done.
24:59Article 142 ensures that the Constitution is complied with
25:05and has been given this power to the Supreme Court to ensure that.
25:09Should Article 142 be used?
25:12According to me, very, very rarely,
25:15only when situations will arise which absolutely call for it.
25:19So the Vice President may be right in saying
25:22Article 142 should not be used in every situation.
25:26But in this given fact, in this given case,
25:30I think most correctly has the Supreme Court come in.
25:34I won't say it is only Article 142.
25:37It is also the exercise of the judicial powers of the Supreme Court
25:41to direct a constitutional functionary to act in accordance with the Constitution.
25:45But Mr. Sundaram, the Vice President then also argues
25:50that the Supreme Court's directive to the President to act on bills
25:54within a three-month deadline oversteps judicial authority
25:57where he is accusing the judiciary of possible judicial overreach.
26:01Do you think the Supreme Court has restrained itself?
26:03Well, what the Supreme Court has said in this case is not much different
26:10than it has had to say in cases where the Speaker of the Legislature
26:16did not act in accordance with Schedule 10 of the Constitution
26:20with regard to disqualification petitions.
26:23Speakers would just sit on disqualification petitions
26:26without taking decisions on it
26:28and then say judicial review cannot come into play
26:31because the court should not interfere with the Speaker's actions.
26:35But that the Supreme Court has clearly said
26:38that the Speaker has a duty to act in accordance with the Constitution,
26:42has a duty to act in accordance with Schedule 10,
26:45and if the Speaker does not act,
26:47the Supreme Court can direct him to act.
26:49And in those cases, there is a case
26:51where the Supreme Court gave a deadline of three months.
26:54Subsequently, in the Maharashtra case,
26:56the Supreme Court gave a deadline of two months
26:59by which the Speaker was to take a decision.
27:02Now, a similar argument was put up there,
27:04and that's not much different than what is being said now.
27:08The point of the matter is,
27:10let's not forget what has happened.
27:12Let's not forget that a governor has sat on bills,
27:15not for days, not for weeks, for months,
27:19and if I'm not mistaken, in a certain case even for a year,
27:23without passing a bill.
27:24Now, without approving a bill, without giving his assent.
27:28In other words, he brings the entire constitutional machinery to a standstill.
27:34Now, is a court meant to sit back and say,
27:36oh, we cannot interfere, we cannot give directions,
27:39we should allow a situation to arise
27:42where there's a complete constitutional breakdown
27:44because the governor does not act?
27:46I'd say the Supreme Court did so.
27:48The Supreme Court would be abdicating its functions
27:51and its duties and responsibilities.
27:54Mr. Sundaram, the Vice President also questioned
27:57the judiciary's authority to direct the President.
28:00While the opposition leaders have defended the courts,
28:03arguing that no office, including the Vice President,
28:06is above constitutional security.
28:11As per you, was the two-judge bench
28:13and the Tamil Nadu case constitutionally competent
28:15to issue such a ruling?
28:19To answer you, absolutely constitutionally competent
28:22because one thing we should never forget
28:26is that the Constitution is above everyone.
28:30The Constitution is above the court.
28:33The Constitution is above the executive.
28:37The Constitution is above parliament.
28:39It is constitutional morality which has to be protected
28:42and that looms large.
28:45And if any constitutional functionary
28:47does not act in accordance with the Constitution,
28:51there is no amount of protection
28:52through separation of powers or Article 145
28:56or whatever else you would bring into play
28:58which can protect constitutional violation
29:04by constitutional authorities.
29:06And I say inaction, non-action,
29:10stalling by constitutional functionaries
29:13is equally a violation of the Constitution.
29:16And I believe that what the Supreme Court said
29:19was absolutely correct.
29:21And especially in the facts of this case,
29:24it was absolutely called for.
29:26But all of this also comes in the backdrop
29:28of what has been very deep criticism
29:32of the judiciary handling of many cases,
29:37be it what we discussed,
29:38the cash hall at Justice Yashwan's residence,
29:41questioning why no FIR was filed
29:43and why a three-judge committee
29:44rather than the executive is investigating.
29:47The question is also,
29:48does the judiciary have the constitutional authority
29:51to self-investigate such matters
29:53or does the support of the vice president's claim
29:56of judicial unaccountability
29:57because that has brought a debate in society today?
30:03I think this is quite an old situation
30:07where any judicial member
30:11does not act according to the court
30:14or his conduct as such
30:16that has raised certain questions
30:18which has to be inquired into
30:19that the judiciary itself
30:21through a high-powered judicial committee
30:23of very senior judges
30:25usually investigates the matter.
30:28This is nothing new,
30:30nothing new at all.
30:32This is something which has been done in the past.
30:34And in fact,
30:35even when you move for impeachment,
30:37let us say, of a judge,
30:38the first stage
30:39after the admission of the impeachment petition
30:41is that a panel is set up
30:44by the chief justice
30:45consisting of a judge of the Supreme Court,
30:48a chief justice of a state,
30:49and an eminent jurist
30:51to go into this
30:52and to give their report
30:53as to whether a case for impeachment
30:57is in fact made out.
30:59So the judiciary
31:01looking into these affairs is not wrong.
31:04Now, let's not forget something.
31:06The judiciary's duty
31:07is to look into matters like this.
31:12If there is impropriety,
31:13alleged impropriety in the judiciary,
31:16the judiciary has a duty
31:17to look into it first.
31:19And I think what is being done now
31:21in this case
31:22is really not a departure,
31:24but is something which has been done
31:25in the past in other cases also.
31:28All right.
31:29Appreciate you joining us, Mr. Sundaram.
31:31Thank you for taking the time out.
31:32Let me quickly now move on
31:33to Dushyad Dhabi,
31:34Senior Advocate,
31:35Supreme Court,
31:35who's joining us live.
31:36Thank you, sir,
31:37for taking the time out,
31:38joining us.
31:38Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar
31:40in a speech
31:41questioned
31:42recent Supreme Court verdict
31:44that has set time frames
31:45for President
31:46in deciding bills
31:47passed by state assemblies.
31:49He has said
31:49President of India
31:50is a very elevated position.
31:53President takes oath
31:54to preserve,
31:55protect,
31:55defend the Constitution.
31:57There is a directive
31:58to the President
31:59by a recent judgment.
32:01Where are we heading?
32:02What is happening
32:02in the countries?
32:03What he seems to suggest
32:05that the court
32:06has overstepped
32:07by setting a time frame
32:09for the President
32:10to act?
32:14Well,
32:14first and foremost,
32:16I mean,
32:16I regard Vice President
32:18Mr. Dhankar
32:18quite personally
32:19very highly.
32:22And I am therefore
32:23quite surprised
32:24and disappointed
32:25that being a lawyer
32:27and having
32:28a known constitution
32:30quite well,
32:31he should make
32:31the kind of statements
32:32that he has.
32:34I think
32:34with greatest respects
32:35to Vice President
32:36Mr. Dhankar,
32:38each of his statements
32:38is constitutionally incorrect.
32:41There is one principle
32:42that we have
32:43in this country
32:44that be you
32:46ever so high,
32:47the Constitution
32:48is above you.
32:49The Constitution
32:50is above the President,
32:51Constitution
32:52is above the Governor
32:53of a state.
32:54And both the President
32:55and the Governor
32:57take oath
32:58under the Constitution.
32:59There is a constitutional
33:00oath
33:00to uphold
33:01the Constitution.
33:03Now,
33:03in a democracy
33:05like India,
33:06we are a parliamentary
33:07democracy
33:08with the executive
33:09legislature
33:10and judiciary.
33:11Each has its own role.
33:13And judiciary's role
33:14in that separation
33:15of power
33:16is to ensure
33:17that both the executive
33:18and the legislature
33:19that the parliament
33:20remain in check.
33:23Now,
33:23therefore,
33:23a judiciary
33:24has an absolute right
33:26of overseeing
33:27the actions
33:29or inactions
33:30on the part
33:30of the executive.
33:31That may include
33:32the President,
33:33that may include
33:33the Governor.
33:34So,
33:35I don't think
33:35Vice President
33:36is at all right
33:37because,
33:38see,
33:39ultimately,
33:40what is it
33:42that is happening today?
33:43In non-BJP states
33:45or opposition rule states,
33:47the Governor
33:47after Governor
33:48is refusing
33:49to clear the bills
33:51which are passed
33:52by the Legislative
33:53Assemblies.
33:54Now,
33:54these bills
33:55reflect the will
33:56of the people
33:57of the state.
33:57It may not be
33:58the will of,
33:59you know,
33:59the majority party
34:00in the center,
34:01namely the BJP,
34:02but it is the will
34:03of the people
34:04of the state.
34:05Now,
34:05Governor,
34:06therefore,
34:06is bound
34:06by the Constitution
34:08to approve them
34:09as quickly as possible.
34:11And if at all
34:11he disagrees,
34:12he has a right
34:13to refer it
34:13to the President.
34:15That doesn't mean
34:15now that the President
34:17should sit over,
34:18you know,
34:18what is referred to
34:19by the Governor
34:19for an indefinite period.
34:21We must understand
34:23that every power
34:24under the Constitution
34:27is subject
34:28to judicial review.
34:30And one thing
34:31is very clear
34:32that every power
34:33is coupled
34:34with a duty.
34:35Therefore,
34:35the President
34:36and the Governor
34:36both are under duty
34:38to uphold
34:38the Constitution
34:39and approve
34:40those bills
34:41as the will
34:42of the people.
34:43Secondly,
34:44both the President
34:45and the Governor
34:45are bound
34:47to exercise power
34:48within a reasonable
34:49period of time.
34:50every power
34:51must be exercised
34:53reasonably
34:53and as soon
34:54as possible.
34:55You can't sit
34:56over these,
34:57you know,
34:57bills
34:58for a long
34:59period of time.
35:00Ultimately,
35:01people of the state
35:02want that.
35:03They have elected
35:04their representatives
35:05and those elected
35:06representatives
35:06of the state
35:07who form a majority
35:08in the state,
35:09they have approved
35:10those.
35:11The legislature
35:11has approved.
35:12So I think
35:13with greatest respects
35:14to Mr. Dankar,
35:15I think he's
35:16far from the
35:17constitutional position.
35:19All right.
35:20But, you know,
35:20but Mr. Dabit,
35:21going into what
35:23the Vice President
35:24has listed
35:24or what he thinks
35:25are issues
35:26with that verdict,
35:27he says,
35:28and I quote,
35:28we cannot have
35:29a situation
35:30where you direct
35:30the President
35:31of India
35:31on what basis.
35:33The only right
35:34you have
35:35under the Constitution
35:36is to interpret
35:37the Constitution
35:38under Article 145.3.
35:40There it has to be
35:41a five judge
35:42or more.
35:43This particular
35:44judgment
35:44was delivered
35:45by two judges,
35:47Justice Pardewala
35:48and our Mahadev.
35:50Now,
35:50does that fall
35:51foul of the
35:52Constitution
35:53is the question,
35:55which is what
35:55the Vice President
35:56says it does.
36:01Well,
36:02I must say
36:02one thing
36:03that I am surprised
36:04that Vice President
36:05has made a statement
36:06like that
36:06because he has
36:07forgotten to read
36:08Article 32
36:09of the Constitution
36:10which itself
36:11is a fundamental right.
36:12And Article 32
36:13obliges
36:14the Supreme Court
36:15to issue
36:16appropriate writ
36:17of mandamus
36:18certiorari
36:18prohibition
36:20as the case may be
36:21to direct
36:22every authority
36:23in this country
36:24to, you know,
36:25act in accordance
36:26with the Constitution
36:26and in accordance
36:27with law.
36:28Therefore,
36:29this is completely,
36:31I mean,
36:31I would say
36:32it's an absurd
36:33suggestion
36:34on the part
36:35of the Honorable
36:35Vice President
36:36to say
36:37that Supreme Court
36:38can't issue
36:38such a directive.
36:39if the President
36:40and the Governor
36:41take law
36:41into their own hands,
36:43then Supreme Court
36:44has an absolute duty
36:45to intervene
36:46and issue
36:47such a direction.
36:48And the President
36:48and the Governor
36:49are bound to act
36:50in furtherance
36:51of that direction.
36:52If they don't,
36:53it amounts to
36:54breaking up
36:55of the rule of law
36:56and nothing
36:57of democracy
36:58will remain.
36:58And that's precisely,
37:00see,
37:00the problem today
37:01is what?
37:02That the Bharatiya
37:02Janata Party
37:03wishes that this country
37:04is opposition mukt,
37:06not just Congress mukt.
37:07Therefore,
37:08every state
37:09in which opposition
37:10is in power,
37:12the kind of governors
37:13who are appointed
37:14and the kind of behavior
37:16these governors
37:16have reflected
37:17over a period of time
37:18is to say the least
37:20absolutely unconstitutional,
37:22disappointing
37:23and many a times
37:24shameful.
37:25The governors
37:25have no role
37:26under the Constitution
37:27to act as,
37:29you know,
37:29exercise administrative powers.
37:32Their role
37:33is a very limited role.
37:35Their discretion
37:35is extremely limited
37:36which is guided
37:37by the Constitution.
37:38So what is happening,
37:40you will see
37:41that in BJP-run states,
37:42governors don't behave
37:43like this.
37:44They don't advise
37:44the chief minister,
37:45they don't appoint
37:46the vice chancellors,
37:47they don't go
37:48where variances
37:48have taken place,
37:49they don't do all that.
37:51But it's only
37:52non-BJP states
37:53that the governors
37:54are functioning
37:55and it seems
37:56that there is a pattern
37:57why central government
37:59is appointing
37:59such persons
38:00in high constitutional offices
38:02as governors
38:03in these states.
38:04I must say
38:05that the
38:06I must say
38:07that the Honorable
38:07President of India
38:08has conducted
38:09herself extremely well
38:11in a very dignified manner.
38:12Yes,
38:13in a given case
38:13if she has,
38:14you know,
38:14set over a particular,
38:16you know,
38:16approval of a bill,
38:17it is wrong
38:18and Supreme Court
38:19has corrected.
38:20But the governors,
38:22again and again
38:22you will see
38:23their conduct
38:24is really unbecoming
38:25of the high constitutional
38:26offices they hold
38:27and I think
38:28a high time
38:30Prime Minister
38:30intervenes
38:31and ensures
38:32that some good people
38:33are appointed
38:34as governors
38:34who really will act
38:36as per the law
38:36as per the constitution.
38:39Mr. Dabey,
38:40the Vice President
38:41referred to the framers
38:42of the constitution
38:43and the debates
38:44that took place then.
38:46He pointed
38:46at the appointment
38:47process of judges.
38:49He says
38:49Article 124
38:51mentions consultation
38:53and consultation
38:54is not concurrence.
38:56He says this
38:57added by Supreme Court
38:58later and questioned
38:59the second judge's
39:00case verdict.
39:05Well,
39:06so far as the
39:07collegium system
39:07is concerned,
39:08Vice President
39:09may be right.
39:10In fact,
39:10I have myself
39:11been an open
39:12and vocal critic
39:13of the collegium system.
39:15I certainly agree
39:16that the second
39:17judge's judgment
39:18case is completely
39:19wrong
39:19and the judiciary
39:21has, you know,
39:22taken away
39:23the power of appointment
39:24and transfer
39:26of the high court
39:26and high court judges
39:28and appointment
39:28of Supreme Court judges
39:29from the executive
39:30in an unconstitutional
39:32manner.
39:32I have no doubt
39:33about that.
39:34So on this point,
39:34of course,
39:35I agree with the
39:35Vice President.
39:38All right.
39:38Moreover,
39:39Dhankar,
39:39the Vice President
39:40also criticized
39:41the judiciary
39:42for lacking
39:42accountability,
39:43particularly in the
39:44context of the
39:45reported cash hall
39:46at Justice
39:47Yashwantwar Maas residence
39:49where no FIR
39:49has been filed
39:50and a judicial
39:50committee is
39:51investigating.
39:52Do you agree
39:52with at least
39:53this view
39:54that investigation
39:55of judges
39:55should be
39:56in some way
39:57fall under
39:58the executive's
39:58domain and
39:59how should the
40:00judiciary balance
40:01independence
40:01with accountability?
40:06Well,
40:06I quite agree
40:07with the Vice
40:08President that
40:09Justice Verma's
40:10saga is very
40:12disturbing and
40:13I am one of
40:14those persons
40:14who believes
40:15that while
40:15maintaining,
40:16you know,
40:16strictly the
40:17fiercely independence
40:19of judiciary,
40:21some mechanism
40:21must be set
40:22into motion
40:23which is,
40:24you know,
40:24which can really
40:24bring these
40:25judges accountable
40:26and there is
40:27no doubt
40:28that there is
40:28large-scale
40:29corruption
40:29in judiciary
40:30and those
40:31corrupt judges
40:32are really
40:32undermining
40:33the institution
40:34and are
40:35really undermining
40:36far more
40:37good judges
40:38who comprise
40:39the judicial
40:40system.
40:41But I must
40:41say one thing,
40:42I mean,
40:42and this is
40:43where Vice
40:44President should
40:44ask,
40:45you know,
40:46his own
40:46government,
40:47that why
40:48is it that
40:48if the cash
40:49was found,
40:50the police
40:50did not
40:50register a
40:51case immediately?
40:52Why was
40:53ED not
40:53brought into
40:54action?
40:55Why is it
40:55that it was
40:56hidden for
40:56four days?
40:58And is it
40:59possible that
40:59this was not
41:00brought to the
41:01notice of the
41:02Honorable Home
41:02Minister and
41:03Honorable Prime
41:03Minister?
41:04So I think
41:05that government
41:06has a lot to
41:06answer here.
41:08Who facilitated
41:09removal of the
41:09cash?
41:10I mean,
41:11if the police
41:11went there,
41:12it is shocking
41:13that the cash
41:14is removed from
41:14there?
41:15So Vice
41:17President perhaps
41:17should,
41:18you know,
41:18hold his
41:19government
41:19accountable and
41:20ask the
41:21government to
41:21really place
41:22the facts on
41:23the floor of
41:23the Rajya
41:24Sabha.
41:25All right,
41:26appreciate you
41:26taking the
41:27time out,
41:27joining us,
41:27Mr.
41:28Dave.
41:28Thank you
41:28there.
41:29I want to
41:29quickly move
41:29on.
41:30You know,
41:30we're trying
41:30to get in as
41:30much legal
41:31opinion on
41:32what the
41:33Vice
41:33President said
41:34as possible.
41:34I have with
41:35me Alok
41:35Prasanna Kumar,
41:36co-founder,
41:37with the
41:37Center for
41:38Legal Policy.
41:39He's one of
41:39the few,
41:40you know,
41:41legalized who
41:42feels that at
41:43least in the
41:44context of the
41:45court asking or
41:47setting a
41:47deadline for
41:48the President,
41:48a three-month
41:49deadline to
41:50act on bills.
41:51The Vice
41:51President was
41:52right, at
41:54least in
41:54questioning that.
41:56Appreciate you
41:56taking the
41:57time out,
41:57sir.
41:57First up,
41:58your quick
41:59response to
42:00the President's
42:01criticism of
42:02the Supreme
42:02Court.
42:03I think the
42:05Vice President
42:05has...
42:06Go ahead,
42:07sir.
42:07He's partly
42:08right and
42:08partly wrong.
42:09And I think
42:10he's partly
42:11wrong for all
42:11the reasons
42:12which I think
42:13Mr. Sundaram
42:13and Mr.
42:14Davey have
42:14said, and I
42:14won't repeat
42:15myself.
42:16Where I think
42:17he's partly
42:17right is that
42:18the constitutional
42:19position is
42:20that the
42:21President can
42:21only act on
42:22the aid and
42:22advice of the
42:23Council of
42:23Ministers.
42:24Nowhere in
42:25the Constitution
42:25is it provided,
42:26and it's a
42:27very, very
42:27exceptional
42:28situation, which
42:29is in the
42:29formation of a
42:30government, that
42:31the President
42:31acts in her
42:32discretion.
42:33That is the
42:33only situation
42:34that the
42:34Constitution
42:35envisages
42:35discretion for
42:36the President.
42:37Everywhere else,
42:38the President
42:38literally cannot
42:39lift a pen
42:40without the
42:41Council of
42:41Ministers advising
42:42her to do so.
42:43The Prime
42:44Minister and
42:44the Council
42:44of Ministers
42:45advising her
42:45to do so.
42:46Now, the
42:46Court has
42:47created a
42:47new
42:47constitutional
42:48requirement,
42:49that there
42:49is an
42:50occasion where
42:50the Court
42:51will direct
42:51the President
42:52to act.
42:53Now, this
42:53is a change.
42:54Is it a good
42:55change or a
42:55bad change?
42:56We don't know.
42:57It comes in
42:58a particular
42:58context, which
42:59I think
43:00no one can
43:01dispute that
43:01the actions
43:02of Governor
43:02R.N.
43:03Ravi are
43:04simply
43:04unconstitutional.
43:05They are
43:05unconscionable
43:06and they are
43:06unconstitutional.
43:08Should this
43:08have been the
43:09remedy that
43:09the Court
43:10chose?
43:10That is
43:11what I
43:11like to
43:11question.
43:12And to
43:13be fair
43:13to the
43:13Court,
43:14maybe there
43:14is no
43:14other remedy.
43:15I'm only
43:16critiquing,
43:16I'm not the
43:17one providing
43:17the solution,
43:18but I'm
43:19only here to
43:19raise the
43:19question that
43:21are we
43:21okay with
43:22the President
43:22now acting
43:23on the
43:24direction of
43:25the Court,
43:25not the
43:26aid and
43:26advice?
43:27Because the
43:27President is
43:28not like
43:28any other
43:29regular legal
43:29functionary.
43:30A mandamus
43:31is meant
43:31for a
43:32regular legal
43:32functionary
43:33to do
43:34their duty.
43:35It was
43:36not intended
43:37for high
43:38constitutional
43:38authorities like
43:39the Speaker
43:40or the
43:41Governor or
43:41the President.
43:42But we
43:43have gotten
43:43to a
43:44situation
43:44where these
43:45high
43:45constitutional
43:45authorities
43:46are saying
43:46we are
43:47going to
43:48subvert the
43:49Constitution
43:49by not
43:50exercising
43:51our powers.
43:52It's one
43:52thing if the
43:53Court says
43:54they are
43:54right or
43:54wrong,
43:55but it's a
43:56completely
43:56different thing
43:56for them to
43:57say,
43:57I will
43:58simply
43:58refuse to
43:59act and
43:59thereby
43:59subvert a
44:00democratically
44:01elected
44:01government or
44:02work to
44:03overthrow a
44:03democratically
44:04elected
44:04government.
44:05And I
44:06think this
44:06is where
44:07to go
44:08back to
44:08the point
44:09that Vice
44:09President
44:10Dhankar
44:10made,
44:11if he
44:11goes back
44:12and sees
44:12what the
44:13concert
44:13assembly
44:13debates
44:14were about,
44:15this is
44:15not what
44:15the Governor
44:15is supposed
44:16to do.
44:17This is
44:17not what
44:17the Speaker
44:17is supposed
44:18to do.
44:19And I
44:19think in
44:20good conscience
44:20and in
44:21good faith,
44:21if he had
44:21to criticize,
44:22he would
44:23start by
44:23criticizing the
44:24actions of
44:24speakers who
44:25refuse to
44:25decide on
44:26defections,
44:27on governors
44:27who refuse
44:28to refuse
44:28bills,
44:29and the
44:30President acting
44:31on the
44:32advice of
44:32the Council
44:33of Ministers
44:33simply rejecting
44:34bills of
44:35the State
44:36Assembly.
44:36That's not
44:36what the
44:37purpose of
44:37referring to
44:38the President
44:38is.
44:39So I think
44:40he's partly
44:40right, but
44:41he's also
44:41partly wrong.
44:42But in the
44:43area where you
44:43feel he's
44:44partly right
44:45comes from
44:45the fact that
44:46the Court
44:46should not
44:46have set a
44:47three-month
44:47deadline for
44:48the President.
44:48And I
44:49would reckon
44:49with that,
44:50you know,
44:51with the other
44:51legal experts
44:52who came in
44:53seem to
44:53suggest,
44:54and I'll
44:54just,
44:54speak of
44:56what Mr.
44:56Sundaram said,
44:57that taking
44:58an unconstitutional
44:59decision is
44:59exactly the
45:00same as not
45:00taking a
45:01decision.
45:02And, you
45:02know, which
45:02was aided by
45:03what earlier
45:04Dr. Abhishek
45:06Manu Singh
45:06said, that
45:07the President
45:08also falls
45:09within the
45:09framework of
45:10the Constitution.
45:11So there's
45:11nothing, it's
45:12exemplary, it's
45:12unprecedented, but
45:13there's nothing
45:14wrong with
45:14what the
45:14Court did.
45:16No, I
45:16would say
45:16there is
45:17something, I
45:17would say
45:18it's wrong,
45:18it's something
45:19which is new.
45:20And we don't
45:20know if that
45:20new is good
45:21or bad, which
45:22is the Court
45:22directing the
45:23precedent.
45:23Now, one,
45:25again, I'm
45:26not here to
45:26give the
45:27solution, I'm
45:27here to
45:27basically only
45:28critique the
45:29Court, which
45:30is that
45:30directing the
45:31precedent is
45:31problematic.
45:32It is
45:33problematic within
45:34the scope of
45:34our Constitution.
45:36The President
45:37of India
45:37basically stands
45:38in the position
45:38of the monarch
45:39of UK.
45:41There's no
45:41court in the
45:42world which
45:42can direct
45:43the monarch
45:43of the
45:44United Kingdom
45:45to do
45:45anything.
45:46And there
45:46is no
45:46court in
45:47India which
45:47was intended
45:48to direct
45:48the president.
45:49But
45:50unfortunately,
45:50we have
45:51arrived at
45:51this situation
45:52where the
45:53court has to
45:53somehow try
45:54and save
45:54the Constitution.
45:55I understand
45:56where the
45:56court is
45:56coming from.
45:57This is where
45:58I'd like to
45:58come to another
45:58point which I
45:59think was
45:59slightly made
46:00by one of
46:00the speakers.
46:01I believe
46:01they should
46:02have gone to
46:02a five-judge
46:03bench.
46:04I believe
46:04the two-judge
46:05bench should
46:06have said...
46:06Which was
46:07something which
46:07even the
46:08vice-president
46:08said.
46:09exactly.
46:10To that
46:10extent,
46:11I think he
46:11has a valid
46:12point.
46:12I'm not
46:12saying the
46:13decision is
46:13wrong for
46:14that reason.
46:14I'm saying
46:15the decision
46:15could have
46:15been better
46:16if they
46:17had referred
46:17it to a
46:18five-judge
46:18bench.
46:18It would
46:18have had
46:19acceptance.
46:20It would
46:20have been
46:20accepted as
46:21look, this
46:22is an issue
46:22that was
46:22seriously
46:23debated.
46:24This was
46:24an issue
46:24that was
46:25debated
46:25among five
46:25judges and
46:26should have
46:26arrived at a
46:27conclusion which
46:27is more
46:28acceptable.
46:28So I
46:29would say
46:29they perhaps
46:30made a
46:30misstep in
46:31not referring
46:32this crucial
46:32issue to a
46:33five-judge
46:33bench.
46:34All right,
46:34I appreciate
46:35you joining
46:35us.
46:35Thank you
46:36for taking
46:36the time
46:36out.
46:37We've
46:37tried to
46:37get you
46:38all kinds
46:39of perspective
46:40from different
46:40legal experts
46:41on what the
46:43vice president
46:43said,
46:44something which
46:44has been
46:45contentious and
46:45deeply debated.
46:47All right,
46:48a rather big
46:48story.
46:48U.S.
46:49President
46:49Donald Trump's
46:50war against
46:51higher education
46:52institutes
46:52continue.
46:53On Thursday,
46:53he called
46:54Harvard
46:54University a
46:55disgrace and
46:56that Ivy
46:57League schools
46:58are abusing
46:58its tax-exempt
47:00status.
47:00But Harvard
47:01didn't flinch.
47:02In response,
47:02the university
47:03said that
47:03there was
47:04no legal
47:04basis to
47:05rinse it,
47:06its tax-exempt
47:08status,
47:08and such an
47:09action will
47:10be unprecedented.
47:11Now,
47:12campus protest
47:12from Columbia
47:13to California
47:14unites people
47:15and the
47:15academia world
47:16in a fight
47:17against the
47:18Trump
47:19administration.
47:26Students,
47:27educators,
47:28activists,
47:29and common
47:30people,
47:30all are
47:33protesting
47:33against the
47:34Trump
47:34administration's
47:35war with
47:36universities.
47:40When higher
47:41education is
47:42under attack,
47:43what do we
47:43do?
47:44Once,
47:45Harvard
47:45University refused
47:47to bow down
47:48to Donald Trump's
47:49diktats.
47:51Others have
47:51joined in to
47:52stand up for
47:53academic freedom
47:54and protest
47:55what they
47:56described as
47:57political repression,
47:58censorship,
47:59and attacks on
48:00higher education
48:01under U.S.
48:02President Donald
48:03Trump,
48:04from Berkeley
48:05in California
48:06to New York
48:07to Washington,
48:08D.C.
48:08Protesters demanded
48:12hands-off
48:14our education
48:15from the
48:15administration.
48:19Tyranny
48:19cannot exist
48:21unless people
48:22submit to it.
48:26And we are
48:27not going to
48:28submit.
48:29Students
48:30at Harvard
48:31University in
48:31Cambridge vowed
48:33not to bow
48:34down.
48:35The university
48:36was threatened
48:37by Homeland
48:37Security that
48:39it will lose
48:39its ability
48:40to enroll
48:41foreign students
48:42if it does
48:43not meet
48:43demands from
48:44the Trump
48:45administration
48:46to share
48:46information on
48:47some visa
48:48holders,
48:49marking the
48:50government's
48:51latest escalation
48:52against the
48:53educational
48:53institution.
48:57We wanted
48:57to show
48:58that Harvard
48:59can stand
48:59together united
49:00saying we're
49:01not going to
49:01cave to demands
49:02that we turn
49:04in some
49:04international
49:05student names
49:06so that they
49:07can have
49:08their visas
49:08revoked
49:09without a
49:10just cause
49:11and they can
49:11be deported
49:12back to
49:13their home
49:13countries.
49:15Students
49:15at Columbia
49:16University
49:17protested in
49:17front of the
49:18campus after
49:19the university
49:20accepted policy
49:21changes by the
49:22Trump administration.
49:23The changes
49:24included placing
49:25the Middle East
49:26Studies Department
49:27under supervision,
49:28hiring new
49:29safety personnel
49:30who can make
49:31arrests and
49:32banning face
49:32masks for the
49:33purpose of
49:34concealing one's
49:35identity.
49:35The university
49:37also agreed to
49:38appoint a senior
49:39provest tasked
49:40with reviewing
49:41several international
49:43studies departments,
49:44leadership and
49:45curriculum.
49:46Similar demands
49:51were made to
49:52Harvard University
49:53and when it
49:54refused, federal
49:55grants and funds
49:56of billions of
49:57dollars were
49:58frozen.
49:58and then the
50:00president threatened
50:01the Ivy League
50:02school with
50:03withdrawal of
50:04tax exemption
50:05benefits.
50:05I think it
50:06will be
50:06something we
50:07discuss.
50:07Because I
50:07think Harvard
50:08is a disgrace.
50:09I think what
50:09they did was
50:10a disgrace.
50:11They're obviously
50:12anti-Semitic and
50:14all of a sudden
50:14they're starting
50:15to behave.
50:17But tax
50:18exempt status,
50:19I mean it's a
50:19privilege, it's
50:20really a privilege
50:21and it's been
50:22abused by a lot
50:24more than Harvard.
50:25By a lot more
50:26than Harvard.
50:26So we'll see
50:27how that all
50:28works.
50:29The fight
50:30continues between
50:31the top schools
50:32led by Harvard
50:33University and
50:34the Trump
50:35administration.
50:37Bureau Report,
50:39India Today.
50:42All right,
50:43joining me for
50:43more is a
50:45visa councillor
50:46and alumni of
50:47Harvard, Dr.
50:48Karan Gupta.
50:48Thank you for
50:49joining us this
50:50evening.
50:51Dr. Gupta,
50:52just begin with
50:53one figure.
50:54Now India
50:54constitutes 50%
50:56of the
50:56327 cases
50:58in which the
50:59United States
50:59of America
51:00has revoked
51:01student visa
51:02since the
51:02Donald Trump
51:03administration
51:03has taken
51:04over.
51:05That somewhere
51:05down the line
51:06completely dampens
51:07the great
51:07Indian-American
51:08dream.
51:11Thank you,
51:12Priti, for
51:12having me.
51:13So before we
51:14declare that the
51:15American dream
51:15is over,
51:16we need to
51:17really understand
51:18the facts
51:18behind these
51:19headlines and
51:19we need to
51:20separate these
51:21facts from
51:21emotion.
51:22The visa
51:23revocations
51:23that we're
51:24talking about,
51:24yes, 50%
51:25affecting Indian
51:26students, we
51:27must put them
51:28in the right
51:28context.
51:29So this is not
51:30a hostile
51:31shift in
51:32U.S.
51:32policy.
51:33It's the
51:33result of
51:34stricter
51:34compliance and
51:35growing digital
51:36scrutiny.
51:37It's not
51:37political targeting
51:38of our Indian
51:39students.
51:40Now if we
51:40look at why
51:41we're getting
51:41these visa
51:42revocations,
51:43it's unintentional
51:44student visa
51:45lapses like
51:46not enrolling
51:46full-time,
51:47failure to
51:48possibly report
51:49changes in
51:49employment
51:50during OPT,
51:51minor infractions
51:52like unpaid
51:53traffic tickets
51:54or social
51:54media posts
51:55which are
51:55misinterpreted,
51:56visa fraud
51:57in rare cases.
51:58So what we
51:59are seeing is
52:00consequences of
52:01poor compliance,
52:03not mass
52:03exclusion.
52:04And a very
52:05important number
52:06to keep in
52:07mind is that
52:07out of 10
52:08lakh international
52:09students in
52:09the U.S.,
52:10we're talking
52:11about 1,000
52:11visa revocations
52:12which is 0.001%.
52:15So really let's
52:16not forget that
52:17Indian students
52:18are not being
52:19pushed out.
52:20They're still
52:20being admitted,
52:21employed and
52:22valued in
52:23record numbers.
52:25You know,
52:26but the fact
52:26that most
52:27Indian students
52:28apply to
52:29what is
52:30proverbially
52:30considered the
52:31non-elite
52:32institutions,
52:33smaller universities,
52:34they're going to
52:35be badly hit
52:35by the new
52:36policies by
52:38the Trump
52:39administration.
52:41Currently we
52:42have over
52:423,31,000
52:44Indian students
52:44in the U.S.
52:45And if you
52:46look at how
52:46much money
52:47international
52:47students in
52:48general bring
52:49to America,
52:49that's $43.5
52:51billion a
52:52year.
52:53That's what
52:53the NAFSA
52:53reports.
52:54They support
52:55like 400,000
52:57U.S.
52:57jobs.
52:58The U.S.
52:58is not going
52:59to make
52:59policies to
53:00hurt international
53:00students.
53:01What we are
53:02witnessing here,
53:02and I was just
53:03watching this
53:04entire protest
53:05by the students,
53:06and what we are
53:06witnessing here
53:07is a clash
53:08between some
53:09universities and
53:10the current
53:10administration.
53:12Our students
53:12need to stay
53:13out of this.
53:14In a couple
53:14of months,
53:15this is going
53:15to roll over,
53:16things are going
53:17to be back to
53:17where they
53:18were.
53:18Our students
53:19should focus
53:19on what they're
53:20going for,
53:20which is to
53:20study.
53:23One final
53:24question.
53:24Harvard's
53:24already said
53:25that foreign
53:26students applying
53:27for a visa,
53:28if they're going
53:28to Harvard,
53:29they're not
53:29going to get
53:30it.
53:31Again, that is
53:32a warning that
53:33Harvard is giving
53:34because it's a
53:34threat that they've
53:35received from the
53:36current administration.
53:37We don't think
53:38that this is going
53:39to follow through.
53:39We're still in
53:40April.
53:41Students are going
53:41to apply for
53:42their visas in
53:43August.
53:43They're still
53:44going to have
53:44ample time to
53:45apply.
53:45If at all
53:47this problem
53:47persists,
53:48Harvard is
53:49going to give
53:49them a certain
53:50part of their
53:50program online
53:51and bring them
53:52to the United
53:53States when the
53:53time is right.
53:55And when that
53:55timing will be
53:56right is the
53:56big question,
53:57sir.
53:58Because that's
53:59a lot at stake
54:00for a student
54:00who's looking
54:01to study at
54:02Harvard,
54:03keeping in mind
54:03how prestigious
54:04that application
54:05is.
54:06But thank you
54:06for taking the
54:07time out and
54:08joining us this
54:08evening.
54:08Appreciate it.