In 1987, Law Minister Shri P. Shiv Shankar delivered a speech on the Silver Jubilee Celebration of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad where the audience consisted of Judges and Lawyers. On that occasion he made a speech on the subject of accountability of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
During the speech, he made comments on the accountability of the three organs and theoretical implications thereof.
The relevant Portions of the speech, were as follows-
“(a) The Supreme Court composed of the element from the elite class had their unconcealed sympathy for the haves i.e. the Zamindars. As a result, they interpreted the word ‘compensation’ in Article 31 contrary to the spirit and the intendment of the Constitution and ruled the compensation must represent the price which a willing seller is prepared to accept from a willing buyer.
The entire programme of Zamindari abolition suffered a setback. The Constitution had to be amended by the 1st, 14th and 17th Amendments to remove this oligarchic approach of the Supreme Court with little or no help. Ultimately, this rigid reactionary and traditional outlook of property, led to the abolition of property as a fundamental right.”
He further said:
“(b) Holmes Alexander in his column entitled ‘9 Men of Terror Squad’ made a frontal attack on the functions of the U.S. Supreme Court. It makes an interesting reading:
‘Now can you tell what that black-robed elite are going to do next. Spring more criminals, abolish more protections. Throw down more ultras. Rewrite more laws. Chew more clauses out of the Constitution. May be, as a former Vice-President once said, the American people are too dumb to understand, but I would bet that the outcropping of evidence at the top in testimony before the US Senate says something about the swelling concern among the people themselves.’ Should we not ask howtrue Holmes Alexander was in the Indian context.”
The Minister further stated:
“(c) Twenty years of valuable time was lost in this confrontation presented by the Judiciary in introducing and implementing basic agrarian reforms for removal of poverty what is the ultimate result. Meanwhile even the political will seems to have given way and the resultant effect is the improper and ineffective implementation of the land reform laws by the Executive and the Judiciary supplimenting and complementing each other.”
It was further stated by him:
“(d) The Maharajas and the Rajas were anachronistic in independent India. They had to be removed and yet the conservative element in the ruling party gave them privy purses. When the privy purses were abolished, the Supreme Court, contrary to the whole national upsurge, held in favour of the Maharajas”.
“(e) Madhadhipatis like Keshavananda and Zamindars like Golaknath evoked a sympathetic cord nowhere in the whole country except the Supreme Court of India. And the bank magnates, the representatives of the elitist culture of this country, ably supported by industrialists, the beneficiaries of independence, got higher compensation by the intervention of the Supreme Court in Cooper’s case. Antisocial elements i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their heaven in the Supreme Court.”
After this speech, a practicing advocate of the Supreme Court P.N. Duda drawn attention of the Supreme Court towards that speech. According to him, by that speech P. Shiv Shankar made statements against the Supreme Court which were derogatory to the dignity of the Court, attributing the Court with partiality towards economically affluent sections of the people and used language which was extremely intemperate, undignified, and unbecoming of a person of his stature and position.
In the meantime, pursuant to the notice Shri P. Shiv Shankar filed an affidavit on 8th March, 1988 in which he stated that he had delivered a speech on the Silver Jubilee Celebration of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad where the audience consisted of Judges and lawyers.
He stated that during the speech, he made comments on the accountability of the three organs and theoretical implications thereof. The Minister has further reiterated with utmost emphasis at his command that he intended no disrespect to any of the institutions or its functionaries much less this Hon’ble Court.
After analyzing the case and considering it as his right to free speech and fair criticism of the court’s ruling, the court dismissed the petition against him.
Reference
P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (1988)