When citizens are faced with the question of what kind of freedom a country should have and what restrictions should be imposed on it, or when the meaning of freedom seems to have been trampled on, the courts will look for answers.
I believe I was born a free being. Was I born in a monarchical democracy like Westminster in England or in a country called Soviet democracy or in a country with totalitarian dictatorship or in a country with constant social tensions, chaos and strife? These questions do not matter, because I have no control over them. But from birth I was given the exclusive right to be a natural person, a right that no one can take away. I have authority over my body. I have the right to communicate freely anywhere. I have the right to speak and write. I have the right to work with others. I have the right to work for my own and my family’s livelihood.
When some citizens build a ‘nation’ together, in their view, ‘country’ is not just a collective address. These citizens draft a charter for themselves. That charter becomes the constitution or constitution of that country. The country does not give any rights to its citizens beyond what is stated in the constitution. Or as stated in the Constitution, no liability beyond that is expected of him. A citizen who is unwilling to accept the constitution of his country can leave the country. He may become a citizen of another country. If another country is ready to accept ..
In this prudent system both the country and the citizens should be able to live in harmony with each other. But there is a real struggle beyond that. What is written in the constitution is sometimes interpreted differently. This can sometimes lead to conflict. The courts (the sole center of judicial power) exercise the power to interpret articles of the Constitution from time to time, although this is often opposed by the legislature. This is important because the power to appoint judges is always in the hands of the government.
Conflicts arise when the constitution is interpreted differently. There may be times when courts and legislatures disagree. The approach of any mature, civilized country to resolving such differences sets it apart from other countries.
A similar dilemma arose in 1973 in the United States. In the Row v. Wade case, the judges sided with the public and defended the right of women to privacy as well as opposition to government sanctions in the case of abortion. A similar incident took place in India in 1976. At that time, the judges sided with the government and attacked the fundamental rights of the people, including the right to life (the result of the ADM Jabalpur v. SS Shukla case, i.e. the ‘habeas corpus case’).
Preservation or burial of the Constitution
In the case of Row vs. Wade mentioned above in the United States, the question arises as to whether the state has the right to enact legislation restricting the right of the woman concerned to have an abortion. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Constitution grants every man the right to privacy on an individual basis, that the decision on whether or not to have an abortion rests with the woman and that her right to exercise it is broad enough. However, the court ruled that the rights of the woman concerned were different until the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, balancing the rights of the woman concerned with state rights. After the first trimester, a woman’s rights vary until she develops the ability to live outside the womb, and her rights vary from the developmental stage of life outside the womb to the actual birth of the baby.
It is true that Donald Trump came to power and divided the thoughts of the American people on many other issues, but the outcome of the ‘Row vs. Wade’ case divides the minds of the American people more than any other question. If the US Supreme Court reconsiders the case, more controversy and bitterness are likely to ensue. (U.S. courts prepare to overturn judgment in Roy v. Wade case, courts seek no-confidence motion.) In it, Row v. The majority of courts have proposed the repeal of the Abortion Rights Act following Wade’s ruling. According to the leaked document, the decision in the case of ‘Row vs. Wade’ was ‘extremely wrong’ and its consequences were very damaging. Roy v. If the verdict in the Wade case is reversed, it could have a serious impact on both contraceptive use and same-sex marriage. (People have more freedom not only in abortion but also in responsible sexual behavior!) The court has the power to extend or limit the concept of ‘freedom’.
The country is waiting.
Many cases affecting the issue of independence are pending in the Supreme Court of our country. Some of them are as follows:
– Denomination case: Can the government denominate 86% of the currency without giving any prior notice?
– Election Securities Case: Can the government enact legislation to provide anonymous and unlimited donations to political parties from corporates (including loss-making companies)?
– Lockout: Can the government suddenly impose a nationwide lockout without any prior notice to the public? And can it make millions live without shelter, food, water, medicine, money? Can those who are stuck somewhere during this period be forcibly repatriated without being provided with travel facilities?
– Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution: Can the Government repeal Section 370 without the consent of the people of the State concerned or the Legislature of the State concerned?
– Treason: According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, can the government blame anyone who opposes or mocks the government?
– Conflicts and bulldozers: Can the government use methods such as clashes and demolition of houses and buildings to suppress public protests or demonstrations?
It is a deliberate and deliberate attempt to attack the very foundations of the nation on which it stands. Attempts are being made to deprive them of their constitutional rights and fundamental rights. In 2022, India’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index dropped to 150 out of 180 countries. Vigilant citizens have knocked on the door of the Supreme Court, the self-proclaimed guardian of freedom. The concept of freedom is waiting for its defenders.