Bhopal, Apr 25: While states to a certain extent are subordinate to the Centre, centralisation does not reduce them to its mere appendages, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Ali Muhammad Magray said Friday.
From the scheme of distribution of legislative powers between the union and the states, it is manifest that the framers of the constitution deliberately endowed the Parliament with greater authority in comparison to the states,î Justice Magray said while speaking during a training programme conducted by the National Judicial Academy (NJA) for Maldives Judicial Officers at Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh.
The programme, which started on April 22 and concluded on Friday aimed to provide capacity building and training for Maldivian judges and judicial officers.
ìThe states are not vested with absolute and exclusive jurisdiction even over subjects specifically enumerated in the state list, thereby rendering them, to a certain extent, subordinate to the Centre,î Justice Magrey said. ìThis arrangement marks a clear deviation from the classical federal models as observed in countries such as the United States of America and Australia.î
The former Chief Justice said historically the founders of the Indian constitution were acutely conscious of the challenges posed by the vastness and heterogeneity of the Indian polity.
ìGiven Indiaís size, cultural diversity, and socio-political complexities, it was considered imperative that the Central government be conferred with adequate powers to preserve the unity and integrity of the nation, especially in the face of secessionist or centrifugal tendencies,î he said. ìNevertheless, this centralisation does not reduce the states to mere appendages of the Centre.î
He said that in ordinary times the constitutional framework ensures a sufficient degree of autonomy to states, enabling them to function as quasi-sovereign entities within their respective spheres of competence.
Justice Magrey pointed out that the Sarkaria Commission, which was constituted to examine Centre-state relations, also echoed the imperative of a strong Centre for the preservation of national unity and constitutional equilibrium.
ìThe commission underscored the paramountcy of Parliament as enshrined under Articles 246 and 254 of the constitution,î he said.
The former Chief Justice said that upholding the rule of law, defending constitutional values, and ensuring justice were the goals of the strong, independent Indian judiciary.
ìWith a combination of post-independence changes and inherited colonial frameworks, its organisational structure, jurisdiction, and methodologies are based on the Indian constitution,î he said.
Justice Magrey gave a detailed presentation regarding the Indian judiciary being a pillar of the greatest democracy in the world.
ìIt upholds the rule of law, defends fundamental rights, and keeps the legislative, executive, and judicial departments in the balance of power as a single, integrated system. The framers’ goal of an independent and strong court is reflected in the study, which is enhanced by insights from the debates in the Constituent Assembly,î he said.
The former Chief Justice also elaborated in detail on the post-independence evolution of the Indian judiciaryís independence, powers, and organisation and that the constitution is the source of its authority.
Referring to the doctrine of the basic structure of the constitution, Justice Magrey said that the same holds that certain fundamental features of the constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament, even through a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
ìThis doctrine was established to protect the core principles of the constitution,î he said.
The former Chief Justice said that the judiciary employs various methodologies to fulfill its mandate of ensuring justice.
