World
India
Justice Kurian Joseph, in an exclusive interview with NewsX, shed light on Stalin’s ‘State Autonomy’ Committee. When asked how this idea was floated to him, what meetings happened and why was this needed, he revealed, “Now, I don’t have much background about this. In fact, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu enquired whether I would be willing to be part of—or rather, heading—a committee which would look into relationships and unrelated matters.”
He added, “I said that I would be happy, in the sense that it’s a part of my job, which I have been doing for more than four decades. I said that I will do it as a service. The only condition I put to him is that I would do it as an honorary service, not on remuneration. That’s the only condition I put. That is the consent I gave—nothing much else.”
Here’s the full interview with NewsX:
“Sir, why do you think this committee was needed? And what do you think is the purpose of the State Autonomy Committee? Can you help us understand this term better?
Justice Kurian Joseph: It’s not a State Autonomy Committee. This is a committee—see, if you want, I’ll read out the purpose of the committee. The committee shall examine and review the provisions of the Constitution of India and existing laws, orders, policies, and arrangements that bear upon Union-State relations in all facets. The committee shall examine the existing provisions in the Constitution of India and suggest necessary measures for the restoration of subjects to the State List, which were gradually transferred to the Concurrent List. The committee shall suggest suitable measures to address the challenges faced by the state in delivering good governance.”
He added, “The committee shall recommend suitable measures to secure utmost autonomy to the states in the realm of executive, legislative, and judicial branches, without prejudice to the unity and dignity of the country. The committee shall examine and publish reports by keeping in view the recommendations of the previous committees or the Commission and Union-State relations, and also various political, social, economic, legal levels that have affected the country for the last five decades. So, it’s nothing to do with state autonomy only, but state autonomy is something which they have mentioned in one of the terms of reference. But it’s not an autonomy committee at all. It’s a federal governance system, no? So, there is nothing called absolute autonomy. But that is a theory of checks and balances, where you have to maintain the unity and integrity of the country. But at the same time, India being a union of states, the states also should have their own respect—spheres of permissible autonomy which they can enjoy without any interference. This is what I have understood as of now.
“Can you help us understand how this committee would work? What are the cases you’ll be looking at? What documents will be studied? And when can we expect a report to be submitted in that case as well?”
Justice Kurian Joseph: Yeah, the first committee in this regard was set up, I think, by the former Chief Minister of TN itself, because TN has taken the initiative—late Mr. M. Karunanidhi—which led to the Rajmandal Committee. Then there was the Sarkaria Committee. Then there is the Justice M.M. Punchhi Committee. So, there are three reports before us. We are looking into those reports and so far, the recommendations of those reports—whether they have been carried out or taken forward to their logical conclusion for better governance of a federal structure of the country—and we hope to do an interim report, because they expect us to give an interim report by at least the beginning of next year, and the final report within two years. For me, it’s a part-time service, not a job. It’s not a full-time assignment—I made that clear because my full-time assignment is here in Delhi where I do arbitration, mediation, consultation, etc. But this I do as an honorary service. So, I sought time. So, the Chief Minister made it clear that it won’t be a problem—it is granted to you. So, we hope to have research, seminars—probably, subject to what my fellow members of the committee suffice—to meet. Other two members, Mr. Shetty and Prof. Naganathan. So we have to meet and chalk out what next we propose to do and how to take it forward. But certainly, there will be research papers and seminars and colloquiums on these aspects, just to know what the people have understood and what the Constitution should be for the people.
“Do you think that on the basis of the study, the findings can then better help strengthen India’s federalism? And will it help other states as well?
Justice Kurian Joseph: I certainly hope so, because it is not meant for the study of TN only. I understand TN has taken the initiative, as it did earlier also—and we must appreciate that. Both initiatives came from TN. And this is not just meant for TN but for the whole country and the states in the country.
“How do you see the SC’s judgement which laid out timelines for the Governor and on granting assent to bills?”
Justice Kurian Joseph: What’s wrong in that? I am not able to find anything wrong in that, because nobody is above the Constitution. The country functions in terms of the Constitution. So, if there is some constitutional functionary which does not permit the constitutional scheme of governance to function, then it is at that stage that the Supreme Court of India, which is the guardian of the Constitution, should step in and remind the functionaries as to how best they should function—and if they still don’t listen, then to make them function, because the Constitution should not fail. The functionaries may fail, but the Constitution should not fail. It is part of the Supreme Court’s duty to see that the Constitution is still the organic document, and it will still be of the country, for the country, and by the country.
“On a follow-up basis—the VP of the country has questioned the SC judgement. He has said that it was an overreach and the SC is, in fact, acting like a super Parliament. How do we make it look like the executive and judiciary are not at loggerheads? What should be done now?
Justice Kurian Joseph: I don’t think that the Vice President actually meant to—in the sense, he was formerly a senior advocate practising in the SC, and he knows very well what the functions of the Parliament are and what the functions of the court are. Because what the Constitution is—it is up to the SC to say. So, if there is some constitutional functionary which does not function in accordance with the Constitution, the SC should always point out to that aspect. If you remember, this came for scrutiny before the SC earlier also in the S.R. Bommai case, when the elected governments were dissolved against the then Presidential order. Those governments came to the Supreme Court, which led to the famous S.R. Bommai case in which the SC has made it very clear that if the powers are entrusted to a constitutional authority for achieving a particular purpose, and if the concerned authority, under the guise of attaining the said purpose, uses power to attain an impermissible object—such use of power is not acceptable. You cannot say it cannot be questioned—it should be questioned, because everybody is bound to function under the Constitution.
“Another criticism on his statement was about Article 142, which he compared to a nuclear missile. Sir, what was the objective of Article 142? And how do you see his comments on this article?
Justice Kurian Joseph: Now, I don’t want to comment on his comment, but I can only say that Article 142 is meant for doing complete justice. So, in a situation where the Supreme Court felt that a situation has arisen and a stage has been reached where it is in the interest of justice, in the interest of the Constitution, and in the interest of governance of the country that its repository power should be invoked, it is well within its power to exercise the same in doing complete justice. Otherwise, again it would have led to a time-consuming process, and then the same authority being subjected to mandatory directions. Certainly, the Supreme Court honestly wanted to avoid such a situation. You know, you can’t defeat the Constitution by delaying a process. If a constitutional functionary is permitted to defeat a constitutional purpose by delaying the process, that is the end of the Constitution. That should not be permitted. It is in that context that the Supreme Court rightly invoked, according to me, Article 142.
“There is also some criticism coming in against the usage of the word “state autonomy” in this particular announcement made by MK Stalin. The criticism is that this would lead to undermining of the Union government and also be against the country’s unity. Sir, would you like to respond to that?”
Justice Kurian Joseph: At least I do not want to think so, because India is a union of states, and Tamil Nadu is also one of the states in the country. So, unity and integrity of the country, which we speak about in the Preamble of the Constitution, is an integral part, and states are also a part of it. So, autonomy means the autonomy permitted in the Constitution. If that autonomy which is permitted in the Constitution is not enjoyed, or is not permitted to be enjoyed by the states, then the committee should examine why—and what are the blocks—and those blocks should be removed. And the state should be made comfortable to the extent the Constitution permits them to be autonomous. For example—very simple—the State List that permits autonomy for legislation. So, there are certain things where there is a constitutional scheme which actually contemplates autonomy for the states. And that autonomy should not be permitted to be interfered with. Probably that is the message that is given in the recent judgement.
“One final question on that note—do you think that the State List and the Concurrent List or the Union List needs a review? Because yes, there has been a debate in TN itself on education as well.”
Justice Kurian Joseph: Yeah, you know, the Constitution is an organic document—it grows. It grows with time, you know. So once you say it is an organic document and it grows with time, there is no harm in revisiting, restating, or reviewing the constitutional scheme of the relationships between the state and the centre.
