Pairokar

Supreme Court of India has saved the country from major constitutional crisis by modifying its own order of 15 th  May 2015 by which it had directed that the photographs of Minister, Chief Minister or Governor of the states would not be published or shown in the government advertisements. The bench consisting of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice P.C. Ghosh had ruled that it amounted to sheer misuse of public money for private publicity. This order had created a lot of problems for the Federal structure of the country, where the Governors and the Chief Ministers enjoy the equal constitutional rights. Under Part VI of the Constitution of India, the rights of the Governors, Chief Ministers and the State Legislatures are clearly defined from Article 152 to Article 213 as it is provided for the Union Executive from Articles 52 to 122 in Part V. Similarly Articles 124 to 147 of Chapter IV deal with Union Judiciary, while Chapter V from 214 to 237 deal with the State Judiciary.

The dismissal of a petition by the Madras High Court with observation that nowhere in the Indian Penal Code it is stated that ‘eating non-vegetarian food is an offence and there is no law touching, eating habits of any religion is an offence’ is very prosaic interpretation of law but certainly not conducive to the evolution of just, fare and judicious law. The famous legal philosopher Roscoe Pound was of the view that ‘law should be stable but not stand still’. In his famous book ‘An Introduction to Philosophy and Social Control Through Law’, he had said that ‘thinking about law one has to think about the society’.  In a civilised society people must be able to assume that those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of society will act in good faith and hence; (a) will make reasonable expectation which their promises or other conduct reasonably create; (b) will carry out their undertakings according to the expectations which the moral sentiment of the community attaches’