 The President of the National Convention, Mr. Suryanth Nath Ramasinai Council, learned speakers of the topic which is chosen by the All-India Lawyers Union. Raju Ramachandra Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India and Chandramudai Singh Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India. See, Somathath Sharma, my good old friend, we were together in the All-India Lawyers Union with the General Secretary of this All-India Lawyers Union, Comrade Brindad Kare. When I was a lawyer, I shared the diocese along with sister in relation to the women legal aspects about 30 years back. I am fortunate today, I was reading your articles in Hindu paper. Today the same temper, same content, same ideological conviction which you have got very briefly presented the entire gamut of the topic enlightened the learned's audience of this auditorium. My respected legal fraternity members, I am very happy to see you all. There is a mixture of audience here today. I was here for four years in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, I used to see only a few lawyers who used to appear in the Court of Supreme Court to attend a function which is being organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association. Today, I could see the senior members of the bar, the young members of the bar, the middle-aged members of the bar. I am also happy to see my sister lawyers are also present. This is a combination of mixture of lawyers and you are the audience who are enlightened every day in and day out defending the human rights of the public litigant in the court of law very effectively before the court of law to get relief to your respective clients. I must join Comrade Vrindakaraj in congratulating the All India Lawyers Union having chosen a very relevant burning topic of independence of judiciary and its accountability to the people of this country. Very, very important today. We became independent 70 years back. We became republic 68 years back. The country population is growing. We have a written constitution under the chairmanship of Dr. Bedkar. Long deliberations in the Constituent Assembly. Each article fell for consideration for debate. I don't want to go into details with reference to either Part 3, Part 4 or pre-amble of the Constitution of India. The contribution of Dr. Bedkar to give it to us, the Constitution of India, which is a political document to the people of this country. And if you read the pre-amble of the Constitution of India, which fell for consideration before 13th Judge Bench in Keshwanandabarthi's case, way back in 1973, in the absence of secularism, in the absence of socialism, it has been interpreted sovereign, secular, socialist, democratic republic India. So these are all held to be the basic structure of the Constitution. This is what is said by 13th Judge Bench of the Supreme Court way back in 1973. Supreme Court has also said that the basic structure shall not be allowed to amend by the parliament in exercise of its constitutional power in Article 368. So, comrade Vrindakaraj has said very recently, responsible ministers who have been sworn in under the Constitution are telling today to the people that people who are defending secularism and people who are defending the Constitution, their DNA must be traced. I don't know whether they have read the judgment of the Constitution. I hope if they have not read, at least they must know what is the judgment of the Supreme Court and how it has been interpreted, the word, the phrase, the secularism. In a pluralist India, multi-religion country, secularism is very, very important. That has fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in number of judgments, more particularly in the case of Keshavananda Bharati and the Bombay case. The entire gamut of secularism has been interpreted and held. It is the basic structure of the Constitution. If the minister or the parliament member or any responsible citizenry does not understand this simple thing, where is the question of amendment to the Constitution? How can they amend the Constitution? That is why today this convention on the topic independence of judiciary and its accountability is most relevant. That is why we have assembled here today. Independence of judiciary is very important to protect, defend these philosophical and conceptual praises used in the preamble of the Constitution, namely sovereignty. Sovereignty will be given by the people of the country to their representative to foreign the responsible government, either the central government or the state government, under the constitutional scheme. So, sovereignty must be protected. Socialists, the people very likely talk about the Karl Marx theory and other right reactionary political party leaders will also debate and tell that it has no relevance. I don't want to go into that as per the matter. Then why the phrase socialist, even the phrase socialist was not there in the preamble of the Constitution? In Keshavananda Bharati and subsequent judgment even in Mineral Mills case, after the Constitution amendment, 42nd and 44th Constitution amendment, the Constitutional bench has rightly said that socialist is also a philosophical word, which is very much embedded in the preamble of the Constitution to achieve the welfare state of the country. The egalitarian system of society in the keeping in view the concept of Article 14, keeping in view the preamble portion of the Constitution, we the people of India to secure social, justice, social, economic, political. So these are all the phrases, these are all held to be the basic structure of the Constitution. These are all being bulldozed today. That is why strong independence of judiciary is very much required to the people of this country. That is why we have assembled here. If the judiciary is independent, it is not our saying. It is very much there in the Constitution of India. It is very much there in the debates of the Constituent Assembly. In fact, the primers of the Constitution at the time of framing our Constitution were concerned about the independence and the kind of judiciary the country needed, the concerned regarding this among all members of the Constituent Assembly could be seen what Ambedkar has said. It is very much there in the Constituent Assembly debates. Ambedkar says, I quote, there can be no difference of opinion in the house that our judiciary must be both independent or the executive and must also be competent in itself. And the question is how these two objects can be secured. This was the debate. This was the constitutional debate by great statesmen of this country before accepting a political document of written constitution given to the people. It is the responsibility of the legislature, the executive, to see that the independence of judiciary must be at all cost to be maintained. If it is not maintained, the constitutionalism, the constitutional democracy, the fundamental rights given to the citizenry of this country under Part 3 of the Constitution and direct principles of state policy ensigned in Part 4 of the Constitution of India, both the rights given to the citizenry have been held by the Supreme Court and UNO declaration way back in 1948. That principle has been borrowed by the Supreme Court of India. Both the fundamental rights and the direct principles of state policy constitute the human rights. If independence of judiciary is not there, there will be blatant violation of the secularism, blatant violation of democracy, blatant violation of rule of law, the question before us, question before the masses of this country today, should we allow the constitutional democracy to survive or the authoritarian rule to be allowed to be ruled in this country is the million dollar question before the masses of this country, more particularly the intellectuals of this country. With the preamble of the constitution, the political document, under the political document the constitution of India, the republic India, governance of the people of this country under the written constitution, it is the constitutional obligation on the part of the legislature to enact the law, it is the constitutional duty to implement the law which is enacted by both the parliament and the legislative assemblies to achieve the laudable object of justice, social, economic, political. So therefore it is the duty of the constitutional courts, particularly in general the Indian judiciary to protect the human rights of the people of this country. It is not to protect the rich, the multinational and industrialists' unipolar development. It is to secure justice to the people of this country, this independence of judiciary. The independence of judiciary is most relevant, important to oversee the functioning of law that will be enacted by the parliament or the legislative assembly. If the law is enacted by the legislature, if it affects the fundamental rights, violates the human rights of the people, that law will be struck down in exercise of the constitutional power by the independent judiciary, constitutional courts of this country, that is the power given by the people of this country. After 99th Constitutional Amendment, Article 124A, the combination of National Judicial Commission and National Judicial Commission Act fell for consideration before the apex court. We're back in 2015, the Supreme Court has examined Threadbare, the five judges who have been empowered with the constitutional power, examine, keeping in view the independence of judiciary, the judicial review is the basic structure of the constitution, the judicial review in relation to the human rights of the people of this country, what kind of combination, what kind of persons must adorn the bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court, what the subject matter, which has been Threadbare, argued by the Leonard Senior Council of the Supreme Court, five judges who have applied their mind, four is to one, the judgment was out, struck down 542 Parliament members' law, holding that it may be the design of a leftist party or a rightist party or a congress party or a socialist party, it was not the concern of the independence of the judiciary, the Supreme Court to examine it. Supreme Court has examined whether it taking away or hijacking the appointment of the judges to the constitutional court, is in conformity with the law adorned by the Supreme Court, is within the competence or within the scheme of constitutionalism, the constitutional democracy, what the subject matter before the Supreme Court in that case. So therefore, please remember, let the legislature, the politicians of this country, the industrialists of this country, anybody who is thinking that independence of judiciary is irrelevant, they are thoroughly mistaken. The answer is, answer is 1973 case 1 in the Bharati, answer is Mineral Amil's case, answer is 1997 Rajasthan case, where in the absence of law, the Supreme Court being the independence of judiciary to protect the constitutional rights of the people of this country, they said, your law is unconstitutional, it does not serve the people's interests, it will affect the basic structure of the constitution, it has been struck down, that is the story of the independence of judiciary. Therefore my dear friends, there will be derailment of the democracy, there will be an orcism, there will not be a civil society, and the rights given to the people, the human rights given to the people will not be enforced. So therefore my dear friends, we are seeing what is the approach of the apex court, what is going on in respect of violation of the fundamental rights, violation of fundamental rights, right to freedom of expression and freedom of the equality, the arbitrary action of the hands of the police, it is not a police Raj, it is a democracy, in a democratic country, written constitution. If the constitutional courts do not come to the rescue of such people, what will happen is there will be a great danger, there will be a great crisis in the country. Therefore my dear friends, I am the great defender of independence of judiciary in the larger interest of the masses of this country. At the same time I wanted to say, yes, the judges of the court have got certain immunities and privileges. Judges of the court are answerable and accountable, the accountability of the judiciary is most important. Accountability of judges, their conduct, their functioning, their action is accountable. What has happened? The accountability of the judges. The Supreme Court files a retribution in Delhi High Court when the right to information of the judges of the Supreme Court is asked, the retribution is filed. We are not accountable. Why are you covering your assets of the judges? You must disclose. You are answerable. This is not what I am saying. This is what Supreme Court has said. Bombay High Court, way back in 1967, has said the judiciary is answerable and accountable. That judgment has been reiterated, in case one on the birthday scale. In the year 1974 Supreme Court, 73 Supreme Court, so if the judiciary is answerable and accountable in the 13th advantage of the Supreme Court, why are you going and filing the right to information act is not applicable. In Rajanarayan versus Indra Gandhi's case, way back in 1975, Supreme Court has said it is necessary. So therefore my dear friends, I don't want to take much of your time. These are all the issues. The judges, the judiciary is answerable and accountable to the country, to the people of this nation and to protect the rule of law, to defend the constitution. Therefore you being the custodians of the constitution and defenders of the rule of law, I hope and think on these lines you will raise your voice, you will defend the independence of judiciary and the accountable of the judiciary. I must express my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Dutta Sharma and All India Liars Union who have conceived an idea of having a very sensitive, irrelevant, important topic chosen for debate and give the views of the learned speakers. I concur with all the speakers their views that everyone consistently have said that we require the independence of the judiciary. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.