 my accident. So good evening and continuing our journey of college sharing. Today we have Mr. Amit Pai who's an advocate on record in Supreme Court and today we thought why not understand as to how the concept of placing of constitutional interpretation came into be. Since it's a weekend we'll straight away ask Mr. Amit Pai to share his knowledge. Thank you sir. The topic that I am going to speak on is really an ocean and I'm not even sure that I can cover a drop in the time that I'm going to speak but I will try and make my best attempt to put forth what I understand as tracing constitutional interpretations. Essentially let me put it this way we may all want to say that the development of constitutional law or the law as such is science, political or social considerations but I beg to differ on that because the constitution at the end of the day is a political document. So over a period of time right from the famous judgment of Marbury versus Madison till today the contemporary political or social situation has always been a relevant factor because the judge comes from the same society, judge comes from the same politics and it's the judge who is ultimately going to decide what the law is. I don't propose to go into a theoretical discussion of different theories of interpretation such as textualism or originalism or what we have now come to some of us have come to accept as living constitutionalism only I would like to say that on living constitutionalism the late Justice Antonin Scalia would always remark that he preferred his constitution dead because he was an originalist but be that as it may what I intend to do is go into some cases which the American court and our own Supreme Court have decided over a period of time and how the politics of that time or the social the societal the social you know situation at that point of time was relevant was a relevant factor. So let me start with the most famous case of Brown versus Board of Education. You see when the Constitution of the United States was written for the purposes of representation an African American was considered three-fifth of a person please please note what I am saying an African American who would who's presumably a slave because you see when the Constitution was written slavery was very much in vogue an African American person was three-fifth of a person for the purpose of representation at that point of time it was acceptable it was accepted the drafters of the American Constitution all had slaves today it is unthinkable today it would send a shiver down your spine if you say oh but a black man was three-fifths of another man right and that is how slavery was slavery prevailed and slavery was there and in the first such case in 1857 called Dred Scott uh the question was whether a slave who has been freed could become a citizen and the American court said no it is something that is unimaginable I am going to repeat because this is something that this is something that that that is shocking in one sense today a slave who's been freed was not considered a citizen in 1857 the same year that we had our first war of independence of course as we all know uh in 1865 president Lincoln abolished slavery of course there was a civil war which led to the abolishing of slavery at the end of the civil war but that didn't change much of the status of a black man the black man was no longer a slave the black man he still continued to be discriminated and there was segregation what is segregation segregation is nothing the blacks would would would be separated from the whites and the blacks would be given facilities which were different from the whites right and in another case called in another case called Plessy versus Ferguson the question of whether such segregation violated the equal protection the the equal protection clause brought by the 14th amendment in 1866 was taken was was considered by the American Supreme Court mind you now slavery has been abolished and there is an equal protection clause and yet the American Supreme Court said no if people are separated but they are given equal facilities it was all right separate but equal was all right right remember this is something that we ourselves had to face when the British were here were in India under the colonial rule we also faced something similar there was one judge who dissented there were two judges who dissented but one who was extraordinarily remembered by the name of justice John Marshall Harlan and John Marshall Harlan said something that is extraordinary extraordinary and something that is as relevant in different contexts today he said that the constitution is colour blind it didn't matter what colour you were if you were separated something separate could never be equal a lot of scholars have commented on Red Scott as well as Plessy and said these were both self-inflicted wounds especially Red Scott even somebody as conservative as Justice William Rehnquist in his book has said that these were self-inflicted wounds of the American Supreme Court and lo and behold in 1954 in the case of Brown versus Board of Education which we all know very famously the court overturned unanimously these the understanding of separate but equal the court said something that is separate cannot be equal and this was a case where a African American girl was not permitted to join school in what was considered a white school so the American court in 18 in 1954 with the pen of Chief Justice the great Chief Justice Earl Warren set this entire practice aside and said blacks and whites were equal segregation was unconstitutional and violative of the equal protection clause now there is a very interesting story to Brown because some of you may know Brown was argued twice Fred Vincent was the Chief Justice when Brown was argued for the first time and he was very much for the separate but equal theory but then after the argument had concluded and before judgment was rendered Fred Vincent died and he was replaced by Earl Warren and Earl Warren made sure that the entire court himself followed with followed by eight other members would all come together and render this unanimous judgment without multiple it's a very short opinion without more multiple opinions single judgment and it was it is even today considered one of the finest moments or redeeming moments of America in so far as slavery is concerned let me take you to another rather controversial and shocking judgment as all of you know in the American constitution quite unlike ours free speech is absolute in India you have reasonable restrictions on the eight heads which are given in 19 two right on the basis of which state can restrict the exercise of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in article 19 one there is no such restraint or power on the state to to to stop freeze the exercise of free speech in the first amendment because there they say Congress shall make no law so the judges have understood it over a period of time to say oh Congress shall make law no law means there can be no law that can abridge free speech so one of the most interesting cases that came that comes is it is called Texas versus Johnson it is a 1986 case and the issue there was Texas had a law which criminally penalized burning of the American flag most of you may know during in during the towards the end of the Vietnam war there was a lot there were a lot of student protests there have been a lot of protests in the 70s in the in the late 60s and the early 70s etc where a number of people to protest against the government burnt the American flag the question was whether this is protected free speech astoundingly it's something that cannot be imagined in India of course because we have our own flag court which doesn't permit this and plus you can reasonably restrict astoundingly the American supreme court took an interpretation of the first amendment and said of course it is protected free speech when you burn the flag they say you are making a protest against the government so therefore it is protected free speech now this is how constitutional interpretation has has evolved let me just quickly jump to 2015 in the in the in the famous case of objafel objafel versus Hodges now this is the case where the gay marriages were you know gay marriages were recognized by the American court but before that let's just take a background earlier the LGBT community so dummy etc was criminalized it has been frowned upon whether it's in England whether it's in India whether it's in America our own section 377 has a Victorian background so gay rights were always frowned upon so no question of gay marriage so in 1986 when Bowers was decided by the American court where the validity the constitutional validity of a Georgian law law by the state of Georgia criminally penalizing sodomy was tested by the annuals of due process and equal protection by the American supreme court the court upheld such a law they said of course they have the power to do it about 20 years later in 2003 when they had moved on when when the LGBT community was more inclusively accepted when there have been more voices for the LGBT community in Lawrence versus Texas Bowers was overturned by the American court and a similar law criminalizing sodomy was struck down as unconstitutional now that really laid the foundation when the question came up as to whether homosexual couples can get married and whether not recognizing their marriage was in violation of the equal protection clause it was in Oblifeld versus Hodges in 2015 that the court you know said recognize gay marriages take this now to India take this now to India we had our own section 377 as we all know section 377 criminalized what was known as unnatural sexual intercourse this was challenged as we all know in the Nuss Foundation case in the Delhi High Court and in the Delhi High Court in 2009 the division bench struck the struck section 377 down to the extent of consenting adults indulging in what was known as unnatural sex in other words homosexual homosexual sexual activity in of course it was appealed to the Supreme Court as we all know in 2013 in Suresh the Suresh Konar console's case the our Supreme Court overturned the the Delhi High Court judgment and one of the considerations that our Supreme Court had was not not just a societal influence but one of the considerations was this was in 2013 and in the beginning of 2013 as all of you know the the IPC was amended in in light of the Delhi gang rape case as you people as everybody will remember into February 2013 the IPC was amended the court said look if the parliament wanted to amend section 377 they could very well have done it because the sexual offenses have recently been re-looked at by the legislature perhaps it is not yet time and therefore we restore the the criminality of homosexual activity as was before the Nuss Foundation judgment of course we all know that this has culminated finally culminated in 2018 into where where Nathesh Johar was decided by a constitution bench and unanimously Suresh Kumar was overruled and unanimously section 377 has today been struck down for consenting adults since I have taken a jump seven seas across to India let us just look at how our constitution has been interpreted over a period of time right and let's start with what I believe is the Gangotri of part three article 21 it's it's very well known that article 21 initially read that no person's life or liberty would be taken away except for due process of law and it is also known that our the advisor to our drafting committee Sir B. N. Rao had gone across the world and sought the views of various scholars and it appears that he was informed by or rather warned of the of the great power that the due process clause had right with regard to this empowering the court to strike down more and more laws by Justice Felix Frankfurter of course this theory has recently been challenged in a book that I have not read by scholar Rohan Alva and I'm told that this theory has been challenged but it appears from what from what I have read that this was informed by Justice Felix by Sir B. N. Rao to the Constituent Assembly and the Constituent Assembly then chose to use the words procedure established by law in article 21 today instead of due process by law so when for the first time article 21 was called in for interpretation in A. K. Gopalan's case at that time mind you our full court the Supreme Court had six judges and all six judges sat on the bench five of those six judges said oh but this cannot be because it was argued by Mr. M. K. Nambia father of our attorney general that the due process clause and of course father of our attorney general under legend the great legend that the due process clause must be read into procedure established by law but five judges said no that was not the intention they they said that the Constituent Assembly had examined the due process clause they chose procedure established by law to be to replace due process so how could something that was replacing due process mean due process right that was what five judges said one of the judges so what what what ultimately came out of this judgment of these five judges was that they're too restrict or or in some way sort of curb article 21 which is one's right to life and liberty one needed a procedure to be established and such procedure needed to have legislative backing the correctness fairness and reasonableness of such a law imposing such a procedure was not to be looked at by the courts of course at that point of time it was a very conservative court mind you in 1950 this was the first constitutional case that was decided by our Supreme Court so our Supreme Court at that point of time came from being the federal court three of the members three of the five members six members of the content the in the Supreme Court at that point of time were federal court judges they were all judges during the British era and obviously there is some sense of legislative supremacy that they all had and they said oh but if this expression of procedure established by law is used it cannot mean something that is not one judge of course as we all know dissented justice fuzzal Ali he said it doesn't matter he said this procedure established by law means due process of law this judgment we will talk about in a minute and it it continued and fuzzal Ali turned out to be the fuzzal Ali's judgment of turned out to be prophetic as we will come to realize article 21 with this narrow positivist interpretation at that point of time nobody thought that you know nobody thought that we would see perhaps nobody thought that we would see some of the days that we saw in our immediate future one of the other great judges that we had slowly started expanding article slowly started expanding article 21 justice subarao later became chief justice in his descent in karaksing he said right to privacy will fall within article 21 in satanth he said that your right to go abroad is an integral part of your article 21 and then finally the watershed moment for the complete 180 degree turn on how our supreme brought red article 21 was emergency in the emergency it so happened that leaders of the opposition were all picked up at midnight and put in jail without any recourse to law they were all picked up and you know in fact the famous case of idiom jabbal poor if you see one of the one of the respondents in idiom jabbal poor is atal bairi watch by because he was equally picked up and put in a jail in bangalore he mr adwani and others were in bangalore so when the question of idiom jabbal poor came up as we all know it came up before a bench of five judges and of those five judges for judges hate that you have no recourse to your right to life being violated during the currency of the emergency in fact as the story goes the in as the story goes the attorney general was queried by one of the judges attorney general niren day was queried by one of the judges as to whether an illegal order to shoot a man a malefide order to shoot a man by a police officer would could it be brought to a court could it be challenged before a court and it appears that the attorney general said no it cannot till there is the subsistence of the emergency now that was the narrow understanding soon after the emergency was lifted in maneka gandhi's case and it was a very simple case it was there was nothing extraordinary but of course any mention of idiom jabbal poor without mentioning justice hr kanna the brave judgment of justice hr kanna not compromising the fundamental principles in part three is incomplete and the justice hr kanna will again feature in this discussion as we go ahead so in menaka gandhi the issue was very simple soon after the emergency was lifted in march 1977 and the new election at the election had taken place and a new government headed by muradji by desai was placed there was a commission of inquiry into emergency accesses under the uh leadership under the chairperson ship of former chief justice jc scha so justice jc scha's commission sent notices to all those people who had something or the other to do with the emergency one of those is maneka gandhi the daughter-in-law of the then the former prime minister indira gandhi right and the wife of mr sanjay gandhi because as you all know during emergency sanjay gandhi turned out was a very powerful political figure in meneka gandhi the government impounded meneka gandhi's passport to make sure that she appears before the shah commission so she brought a case saying that i have a right to travel abroad they have impounded my passport without giving me a hearing and it so appears that when the matter came up in the court the government said all right we will give her a hearing and if you agree with her we will return her passport so said the attorney general this is also recorded in the dissent of justice ps kailasam in maneka gandhi but the court said no they said we have to look at the larger question the larger issue that is what we want to look at and then the court sort of looked at that reconsidered the procedure established by law phrase from eke gopalan and this time held what justice fuzal ali had held in 1950 saying that procedure established by law was not a blank plain procedure established by law the law had to be just fair and reasonable in other words that very due process clause which was specifically considered and excluded by the constituent assembly and on that contemporarily the supreme court refused to read it within article 21 was resurrected 27 years later in the background of the emergency the point i am trying to make is if you look at you know you can today it's very easy to say this interpretation is wrong or that interpretation is wrong but in 1950 the judges thought that this interpretation was correct because the constituent assembly had specifically chosen something by the time we reached 1978 and in the immediate aftermath of the emergency of 1975 to 77 the judges thought if we don't specifically you know sort of constrain the restrictions on article 21 then you know emergency could perhaps be repeated the excesses on the right to life and liberty could be repeated and this judgment of manika gandhi again like i said open the doors of article 21 that one line article no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except by procedure established by law that's all it reads has now volumes and volumes of supreme court cases with prisoner rights environmental rights the rights of those who could not come to court you know those under trials who are there people who are tortured etc etc etc etc etc etc etc i don't need to elucidate we all know those cases the point is the societal and the political the contemporary and the society contemporary political and societal situation was what the court considered most recently nine out of nine judges unanimously have upheld the judgment and upheld the right to privacy to be read into article nine article 21 in putzwami's case as we know in 2017 let's come to something else that is very interesting and something that i i personally have done some study on which i i something i cherish constitutional amendments now article 368 gave parliament the two houses of parliament the power to amend the constitution it never said how much the constitution can be amended it was understood that the constitution can be amended right so let's in in in 1950 after two or three judgments on the land reforms act on article 19 one of them from patna one of them from madras two of them from madras the first amendment to the constitution was brought the first amendment to the constitution uh brought about uh you know brought something that is unique which is the ninth schedule and what is this ninth schedule this ninth schedule essentially if a if an act if a legislation was challenged on the anvil of part three it could be struck down that is what article 13 says nine schedule said but if we put such an act which can be struck down in the ninth schedule it cannot be struck down it cannot be struck down on the grounds of article 19 and 31 14 19 and 31 19 because 19 one g then had property rights 31 of course had property rights most of these laws were pertaining to zamindari abolition to to uh you know redistribution of land which was one of the cherished uh cherished sort of uh uh uh you know agendas of the then government the the obviously a challenge was brought as to how a constitutional amendment court could permit the taking away of fundamental rights which was so cherished part three of the constitution in sankhari prasad's case in 1951 the court decided mind you the the first election in india happened in 1952 not in before that the constitution bench decided look this is the legislature it was a single judgment crisp shot authored by patanjali shastri j who later became chief justice of india which was very simple it said article 368 says that you have the power to amend the constitution and if in that exercise by that exercise by the exercise of that power if the legislature goes ahead and creates an exception there is no way that we can sit in judgment over what the legislature has done one of the grounds that was raised was but the article 368 contemplated that both houses of parliament do it and both houses of parliament were not there in 1951 there was only one house of parliament which was the provincial provisional parliament but there also the question that the point was most of the provisional parliament was the constituent assembly so obviously they knew what the constitutive what was the constitution or what the limitations on the constitution or the amending power of the constitution were unanimously the court negated such a challenge over a period of time more and more legislation started being included in the ninth schedule during the emergency some of most like i said the legislations that were initially included in the ninth schedule were primarily for the purposes of zamindari abolition etc but during the emergency the the infamous maintenance of internal security act was also added in the ninth schedule so we'll come to that a little later in 1965 after some more legislation were added into the ninth schedule another challenge was brought this time the constitution bench was divided on the issue although the majority headed by chief justice gajendra gadkar said look there is no need that there is nothing wrong with chankriprasad's judgment justice hidayatullah said that these cherished rights in part three for which we our forefathers thought could not be a plaything of the majority he said this is not my last word and most interestingly justice mudholkar he said and this he based on a very most interesting he based on the pakistan supreme court judgment and said that the the basic features of the constitution surely were not meant to be done away with a parliamentary majority he left it at that a couple of years later the issue again came up from some other state this time the state of panjab some other legislation and here the chief justice then was chief justice subarao who i have mentioned a little while ago he was one of those who's considered a pathfinder in the judiciary he he constituted this large bench of 11 judges who were to consider whether an amendment to the constitution would taking away part three rights would fall foul of article 13 of the constitution now this is the precise question that had been rejected in sankhari prasad and reiterated in in sankhari prasad was reiterated in sarjan sink two years ago but chief justice subarao as as history is uh has history tells was a great propounder of fundamental rights and civil liberties ultimately by a razor thin majority of sixes to five mind you by 1967 we had a change in government twice prime minister neru died prime minister shastri died and mrs indira ghandi was the prime minister there were rumblings in the political executive in the legislature it was not a government which was as stable as prime minister neru's about 15 years ago and justice subarao found an innovative understanding or an innovative interpretation to suit the the need of the hour and held that any any constitutional amendment that took away a fundamental right fell foul of article 13 of the constitution because it was law within the meaning of article 13 he said article 368 only lays down the procedure the power to sort of the power to amend the constitution was not in article 368 it was in entry 97 of the first list now this was innovative constitutional interpretation and ultimately he held that part three could not be abridged abrogated or taken away by a constitutional amendment henceforth in 1969 as we all know the congress party split and mrs ghandi's government went into a minority in 1970 towards the end she dissolved parliament called for an election and came back with a good majority and soon thereafter she passed the 24th amendment which undid golapna and then in 1972 came the situation came came came a situation where the court was packed with judges with the sole aim to revive the absolute power of parliament to amend the constitution this was a precursor to what we all today know as keśa on the barthi's case in keśa on the barthi amidst a very tense atmosphere which has been written about and spoken about in multiple fora the 13 judges ultimately again by a razor thin majority decided that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be tampered with by the power of constitutional amendment exercised by the legislation 1973 24th april was this judgment on 25th april was the last day of the chief justice of india chief justice sikhri in office he retired on 20 20 he was to retire on 26 april as was the course in those days naturally the senior most judge was to be appointed as we all know three of the senior most judges justice shellat justice and justice grover were superseded for the fourth senior most judge justice and re these three judges had voted against the government in keśa on the barthi and were superseded justice and re had voted in favor of complete absolute power and was made chief justice mind you this is important for the next part of what i'm going to tell you which which i'm going to discuss which is appointment of judges in those days it was the government who had the full power because the president is to appoint right on the advice aid and advice of the prime minister and her cabinet we will come to this discussion in a bit so now in 1975 the event leading up to the imposition of the internal emergency was the setting aside of the prime minister's election by a single judge of the elabad high court possibly the only time a judge has stood up and did what he thought was right when it comes to directly comes to a prime minister i don't know whether something like this is possible in contemporary times the elabad high court judgment was challenged before the supreme court and the supreme court granted a conditional state which permitted the prime minister to continue in office but not vote in parliament what good is a prime minister who can't vote in parliament what is the authority of such a prime minister soon thereafter internal emergency was imposed the entire opposition was hauled up and put in jail with the entire opposition in jail in a matter of four days the constitution was amended to immunize the election of the prime minister the prime minister and the speaker was the amendment was to immunize the election of the prime minister and the speaker but obviously it was to immunize the election of the prime minister and on the fifth day after these four days when the matter was listed in in the supreme court the the council in mr aksin appearing for mrs gandhi told the court that the constitution has now been amended and this matter is now in fractures so a challenge on corrupt practices which was upheld by the high court as against the election of the sitting prime minister was nullified by a constitutional amendment passed in you know an extraordinary hurry of four days with a truncated parliament with the entire opposition in jail at that point of time this amendment was challenged on the basic structure interestingly and mysteriously because it is a mystery to me even today the basic structure which was not accepted by the government and which was heavily criticized by those in government and supporting the government in 1973 was not called into question by the government when arguing the election appeal indira gandhi versus rajnarayam they accepted the basic structure and its application on the basis of that basic structure this 39th amendment to the constitution which immunized the election of the prime minister was set aside a few days thereafter suddenly a bench of 13 judges was constituted to reconsider the basic structure doctrine laid down in keshavanan bharti arguments went on for two days nobody knew why such a bench has been constituted what was significant was what i forgot to mention the basic structure doctrine as such came from the pen of justice hr khanna in keshavanan bharti and in this reconsideration or review of keshavanan bharti in november 1975 on the 11th of november if i remember right of the 13 judges the only judge who had otherwise shown allegiance to the basic structure doctrine was justice hr khanna the remaining 12 judges had either held against the basic structure doctrine or had held against or were new judges now under these circumstances for two days it was vehemently argued by mr nani palkiwala as to why these the reconsideration should not happen because the judgment is being applied in several cases and on the third day chief justice re who we will remember superseded three judges dissolved the bench this was in 1975 in 1976 there was the infamous 42nd amendment which again sought to revive parliament's absolute power to amend the constitution but in minerva mills by that time mrs gandhi's government emergency had gotten over mrs gandhi's government was out the the the janta government had come in and finally in minerva mills the basic structure doctrine was revalidated and since then it has continuously been followed and it is one of those things that the indian the the indian supreme court and the community as such the lawyer community as such would never like to revisit let me now just come to judges appointment before i wind up article 124 and 217 of the constitution says that the president will appoint judges in consultation with the chief justice and such other judges as the deans fit as we know the president is the executive head of the of the of the country of the government he is he he or she works on the advice aid and advice of the prime minister and the cabinet so therefore when i mentioned in 1971 and 72 the court was packed the court was packed because the president could appoint the consultation of the chief justice the question was whether he had a veto power in deciding whether a judge should join the bench or not whether it was the bench of the supreme court or the high court the first time during emergency any judge who held against the government was picked up from his high court and shunted to another high court there are several such examples additional judges were dropped additional judges were not continued there are there were several such examples so when the question came whether in 1980 when mrs. ghandi's government came back to power the then law minister circulated a memo in which he said a circular in which he said when you are accepting judgeship you must give consent to be transferred out certain judges were transferred out certain additional judges were not confirmed so the question came whether the chief justice's voice the chief justice of india his voice had primacy in the appointment process seven judges heard the matter they said no the chief justice is house ever much just as bhagavati as we know wrote the late judge the the lead judgment in the lead judgment he says although it would be ideal that we have some sort of a collegiate right because informally prior to the government asserting itself the chief justice would always consult his senior colleagues and send names for the government to appoint his judges and it would hardly happen that a chief justice a name that the chief justice did not concur on would be appointed as a judge whether to the icon on the supreme court then the times changed politically etc as we discussed in 1981 in sp gupta's case the question of primacy was decided by the judiciary against the judiciary they said house ever much we would like it is not what the constitution says he is a consulting the chief justice is a consulting he has no primacy it gave a free hand to the government to make appointments as they liked and it went on from 1981 till finally in 1993 the question again arose whether this consultation in article 124 and 217 would actually mean primacy in scora that is the second judges case the supreme court advocates and record associate advocates associational record case the supreme court first for the first time said that there will be a collegium headed by the chief justice and with two of the senior most judges of the court right who will make recommendations to the government those recommendations made to the government have to be those recommendations made to the government have to be appointed thereby giving a voice to the there by giving primacy to the opinion of the chief justice in the case of appointments of judges now here is the issue they said this is too much power to give one man and the chief justice is not the individual but the institution and therefore the collegium mind you this collegium as I said was an informal process earlier so look at the interpretation of the change in the interpretation of the constitution in the interests of the independence of the judiciary the world collegium does not find its place anywhere in the constitution perhaps India is the only country in the world where judges appoint themselves but that was the need of the hour of course as we know by 1998 a reference was made and the collegium from three to was extended to five and today it is a collegium of five judges that recommends for appointments to the supreme court and the collegium of three judges to the high court to the government the NJAC was brought by the government which was struck down and there has been an impasse in the appointment of judges there are several problems about reiterated names not getting appointed about delays etc etc and in April last year a judgment has been rendered by the supreme court fixing a timeline saying that once the collegium makes a recommendation you have to make the appointment within so much time if you have a problem and you reiterate it and if they if you send the name back and there is a reiteration right you have to make it within so much time the parallel a parallel can be drawn with judicial appointments to legislations you know if the president doesn't agree with the legislation he has the power to send it back to the legislature and president or governor and if the legislature or the governor sends it legislature sends it back to the president of governor they have no choice but to sign it into law similar was the case from the second judge's case if the if the president which is really the government had a problem with the name they could send it back but the court said upon a reiteration you have no choice but to make the appointment now this is how the journey of appointment that the interpretation of the appointment clause has taken place i believe i have spoken for about 50 minutes i can go on but i don't want to test anybody's patience if there are if there is anything i would i would if there's anything that anybody would like to ask i would be more than happy to address yes please if there are any comments if there is anything i would some questions have been posted but they are in respect of general law right may i just conclude by saying remember what oliver wendell home said the life of the law is not logic it is experience interpretation of the constitution has changed over years by experience by by understanding the historical political and social background and by tending to the needs of the hour thank you very much thank you samit we were trying since long that we should connect ultimately yes we have connected and it was quite a fascinating session so as you rightly said the topic is as deep as ocean and as vast as an ocean but ultimately it is how you pick up the pearls in that under the key and tomorrow friends we will be having a session on sentencing policy in india and the criminal law that is by s sit english former district judge and principal law secretary from apartment of punabhina so do stay connected with us at 8 p.m or 6 p.m tomorrow and thank you amit pai once again for sharing your knowledge