Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a quotation record.
00:00:04I am better placed
00:00:25Hello, you have started watching our special discussion program on DD News.
00:00:29I am Chandra Singh, and in today's
00:00:32discussion, we will talk about the two pillars of democracy,
00:00:36the judiciary and the executive,
00:00:39the relationship between these two, and
00:00:42their respective rights. This debate has re-emerged
00:00:46because something new has happened,
00:00:49something that had not happened before.
00:00:53Opposition parties wrote a letter to the Chief Justice,
00:00:56to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, requesting a meeting.
00:01:00He responded, he responded through a letter,
00:01:03and this reply was given yesterday. And
00:01:07in it, the Chief Justice, Justice Suryakant,
00:01:10wrote everything in his reply. Despite
00:01:13that, the opposition parties have taken to the streets.
00:01:17But this has sparked a debate that
00:01:20if you want to talk to the
00:01:22judiciary and the Supreme Court Chief
00:01:26Justice, what should be the way? What
00:01:30are the constitutional provisions? Today,
00:01:32we will discuss this issue. First, let
00:01:36us show you what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
00:01:39Suryakant, Justice Suryakant,
00:01:43wrote in his reply. He refused to meet Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and
00:01:47Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. He refused
00:01:50to meet
00:01:52them.
00:01:58And the Chief Justice wrote a letter
00:02:00and appreciated. to both leaders, a reply letter, and he fully clarified
00:02:03the reason for not being able to meet. He said that the issues on which
00:02:07opposition leaders want to meet him are already pending
00:02:11before the Supreme Court. So, meeting to discuss pending cases
00:02:15Now it is rebar with would not be in accordance with established ethical
00:02:19norms and judicial decorum. Also, the Chief
00:02:23is hidden from Justice clarified in his letter that discussing pending cases
00:02:26at an administrative level would be against
00:02:30the principle of separation of powers. He
00:02:33also advised opposition leaders that instead of submitting a memorandum,
00:02:36they should take recourse to the judicial process of the Supreme Court and file
00:02:40their petition online or directly
00:02:43in court. The Chief Justice said that it is the duty of the Supreme Court
00:02:46to consider cases related to the violation of fundamental
00:02:50rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. In fact,
00:02:54Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge wrote a letter to the Chief Justice on October 10th
00:02:58and requested a meeting between
00:03:004 and 5 p.m. for October 12th, i.e., today.
00:03:03Both leaders wanted to submit a memorandum
00:03:07on issues related to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission,
00:03:10alleged arbitrary arrests of students, closure of metro stations,
00:03:14and cancellation of trains. They wanted to meet
00:03:18and submit it.
00:03:36which shows the accuracy
00:03:40So, today's discussion
00:03:40Who can ask is about this. The topic of our discussion
00:03:44is whether our leaders are forgetting the dignity of the Constitution
00:03:48for political gain. And this includes prominent
00:03:52leaders and major parties
00:03:56who have ruled this country for decades,
00:03:59who have held power, who claim to have
00:04:03built institutions, who often refer
00:04:07to the Constitution, holding it in their hands, saying that
00:04:10this is the Constitution and it should be followed.
00:04:14So, have these leaders, these parties, forgotten
00:04:17the dignity of the Constitution, and are they
00:04:20not following the Constitution themselves? And that is why
00:04:24they are taking such steps, steps that have never
00:04:28been taken before. So, what are its legal aspects,
00:04:31what are the provisions in our Constitution? If, for instance,
00:04:35the executive, that is, leaders, officials,
00:04:38or anyone, if they
00:04:41need to meet the top people of our judiciary, to raise
00:04:45an issue, what is the provision for that? Sanjay Chaddha
00:04:48ji, a legal expert, has joined us. Let's try to understand
00:04:52from him. Welcome, Sanjay ji. First of
00:04:55all, we will try to understand
00:04:58Nowadays, that is not necessary. from you, and in fact, everyone would want to know at this time, has
00:05:00anything like this ever happened before, where leaders of parties
00:05:04wrote and requested a meeting? Because there
00:05:08are many ways to submit a memorandum or a petition. Has
00:05:11this ever happened before? Is there such a system in our
00:05:14Constitution, or was this an attempt to go beyond
00:05:18the Constitution? Two things. The answer
00:05:21to the first question is that historically,
00:05:24if we look, no political party has ever requested
00:05:28time from the CJI or judges
00:05:32to submit any memorandum
00:05:35or anything of that sort. If it has to be submitted, as you mentioned, there
00:05:38are many other ways, including through
00:05:42post, including by delivering it to their
00:05:46office. This is what happens, just like in this case. This letter
00:05:50was written two days ago, and it was delivered there.
00:05:54Yes, okay. So that's one thing. Secondly, you
00:05:58asked if there is any such provision in the Constitution.
00:06:01The answer is no, there is no such provision
00:06:05because this is an administrative task, not a judicial
00:06:09task. So,
00:06:13there is no such provision. Now, as far as this decision
00:06:16is concerned, and
00:06:19why he took such a decision, nobody
00:06:23can comment on that. Absolutely, you are right that
00:06:26since these are political matters, what is there to comment on?
00:06:29But the way a meeting was requested for the 12th,
00:06:33just one day before, today the Chief Justice's statement
00:06:36also came, he said that I had replied to the letter a day before,
00:06:40i.e., yesterday. And in the reply, he explained
00:06:44in detail why he is not meeting. He has given sufficient reasons. In the
00:06:48light of the reasons he has given,
00:06:51the Chief Justice has said
00:06:55very important things. Because he also talked
00:06:58about the separation of powers.
00:07:02He also said that it would not be good if you meet
00:07:06him separately on a case that is under hearing.
00:07:09This should not happen. These are very important things.
00:07:29Based on that, I would like to say that if any matter is going on before a judge, no party or any person related
00:07:33to it talks to him about
00:07:36that matter. This is something that
00:07:39is not considered appropriate from a judicial point of view.
00:07:44The second thing is why the Chief Justice, I saw his
00:07:47interview this morning, he clearly said
00:07:51that because the issues about
00:07:53which you are trying to meet me, for which you
00:07:57have written a letter, those issues
00:08:00are already pending in a petition in the Supreme Court.
00:08:03So, it is not appropriate,
00:08:06rather it is not fair for me
00:08:10to meet you for this particular issue.
00:08:14This is the first thing, and the second is a very
00:08:17important thing that the CJI
00:08:20said, which we can also say is that the issue is already
00:08:24sub judice. So, don't talk
00:08:27to me about it because you have full
00:08:31right to come to court either yourself or through
00:08:35another person, another advocate, and present your views on that issue
00:08:38when it is being heard. Yes.
00:08:41Right. Absolutely.
00:08:44The argument of the leaders who wrote the letter for a meeting
00:08:48is that just as we presented our views to the President,
00:08:52and just as we go to meet the Election Commission, similarly,
00:08:55we want to convey our views to the Chief Justice, and that is
00:08:59why we wrote this letter and requested this time. But
00:09:03first, you are saying that there is no such precedent, it has never happened before.
00:09:07Secondly, there is no such provision.
00:09:10Thirdly, when the same case is under hearing,
00:09:14then such a meeting becomes even more unfair.
00:09:17That is to say, it would be inappropriate. Such
00:09:21a meeting would be inappropriate. In such a situation, if they
00:09:24want to express their views, what are the constitutional ways,
00:09:28what are the legal ways through which any leader, any party,
00:09:31or even any common citizen, if
00:09:35they want to express their views on this whole matter that is under hearing, how
00:09:39can they do it? Sir, as you said, any
00:09:43person who wants to express their views has several
00:09:46means. One is, you
00:09:50know, I'm saying any person, so X, Y, Z.
00:09:53These are, of course, the Leader of Opposition. They
00:09:57are not just any person, they are different.
00:10:00So, if any person, you
00:10:04want to give some better inputs, better
00:10:08information, and you want to give
00:10:11that to the court, in this regard, you
00:10:14can file an application before the court.
00:10:18When this particular case is heard, you can
00:10:21also become a party. You will give your reason that due
00:10:25to these reasons,
00:10:29to assist the court on this issue, that you
00:10:32should make such and such a decision. So what
00:10:36is called intervening, intervening petition,
00:10:39intervenor, I have to intervene
00:10:42in it. The literal meaning of intervention
00:10:46is interference, but it is a
00:10:49intervenor application. So you can become
00:10:52an intervenor and present your fundamental
00:10:56feelings to the court. On many issues, we see
00:11:00intervenor applications filed every day in court.
00:11:04The court hears them, and a large
00:11:07number of intervenor applications are also rejected,
00:11:11in which the court says that no, we are competent, we do not need the knowledge
00:11:14you want to show or the information you
00:11:18want to give. I have said it in harsh words, it
00:11:22is not acceptable. We will not, because otherwise thousands of people will line up tomorrow.
00:11:55A Supreme Court speaker has joined us, Aman Sena ji. Welcome
00:11:58to the discussion. I would like to convey
00:12:02your opinion, your understanding on this aspect
00:12:05to the people. Let's take a short break. After the break, we will return to both of you.
00:12:08For now, it's time for a short break
00:12:10in the discussion.
00:12:16India's largest gold loan NBFC, Muthoot Finance.
00:12:19Take a gold loan and then see what gold cannot do.
00:12:23Call 1800313.
00:12:26When the iron stone comes out by tearing the earth
00:12:30and meets the zeal of Mongia,
00:12:33then it is heated, melted,
00:12:36and becomes steel.
00:12:40all its qualities.
00:12:42Mongia Steel, strong country's strong
00:12:45rebar.
00:12:49Welcome back after the break. You are watching our special program in discussion, and we have
00:12:53both our guests joining us. Aman ji has also joined, senior advocate of the Supreme Court,
00:12:57and Sanjay Chaddha ji has also joined. And what are we talking about? We are talking
00:13:01about what the Chief Justice
00:13:04of the Supreme Court replied to the letter
00:13:08with. What are the key points, what are the provisions, what are the legal provisions,
00:13:12what are the different rights? Aman Sinha ji,
00:13:15the way some leaders wrote a letter, first of all, it has never
00:13:19been seen before, there is no example of it ever being done before.
00:13:22After that, what the Chief Justice
00:13:26said in his reply letter, how important
00:13:30is it? Also tell me that if we look at it legally,
00:13:34in terms of legal provisions, in terms of tradition,
00:13:38then not asking for time for a meeting
00:13:42has not been in tradition.
00:13:45Aman Sena ji,
00:13:48Look, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the country,
00:13:51it is a temple of justice, not an arena for political rallies.
00:13:55And the court runs on petitions,
00:13:59it does not run on a political
00:14:02procession. Those who wave the Constitution,
00:14:06they should sometimes open and read the Constitution.
00:14:10And they should also understand its dignity.
00:14:13Clearly, this matter is pending in the Supreme Court,
00:14:16before the bench of the Chief Justice of India. And
00:14:20as you said, he himself said in his letter
00:14:24that the matter is sub judice, so come through a petition.
00:14:27But he didn't want a petition, he wanted
00:14:30to come with a political procession. So,
00:14:34the whole country, our whole justice system,
00:14:37will run according to the Constitution, right? A separate
00:14:41system will not be created for one person.
00:14:44Of course. And when a case
00:14:48is pending before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
00:14:51himself on the judicial side, and you are going
00:14:55to the same judge of the Supreme Court with a political procession,
00:14:59and you want to give a memorandum with a long procession,
00:15:03then this is a tactic to put pressure.
00:15:06This is clearly an attempt to influence
00:15:10and put pressure. Otherwise, you could have done it by impleading
00:15:14in the same petition. What is the need for such a big show?
00:15:18And a single lawyer could have gone and filed it.
00:15:23It can also be filed
00:15:25online. So, in a way, they are doing this.
00:15:29If, suppose, a judge meets and takes
00:15:33a private memorandum, any sub judice matter that is before him,
00:15:36then he cannot hear that case
00:16:08further. And clearly, if someone had to go there,
00:16:11a single lawyer could have gone and filed it, it could have been
00:16:15online. You are going to the same judge with a sub judice
00:16:19matter with a private memorandum, a political procession.
00:16:22Yes, as you said, as you said,
00:16:26this was somehow an attempt to pressure the Chief Justice.
00:16:29Was it because of these things,
00:16:32so that a wrong message should not go anywhere, or it should not be twisted,
00:16:36as you mentioned about the talks after meeting the President?
00:16:39For this also, the Chief Justice
00:16:43himself came today and said that I had replied
00:16:47to the letter a day before. The Chief Justice
00:16:50explained these reasons sufficiently precisely because of these things,
00:16:54so that no confusion or doubt should be spread among
00:16:57the people about why I refused to meet. He listed all those things.
00:17:01Was this the reason? No,
00:17:04you are absolutely right, and that is why he
00:17:07clearly wrote in his letter that this matter is sub judice
00:17:11before him, and that is why no private meeting can
00:17:14be entertained in this way. And if you look at the issues
00:17:18also, it will be very clear. For example,
00:17:21the talk about ballot paper and EVMs. In many cases, the Supreme Court
00:17:25has already settled this issue. Now,
00:17:28we cannot go back to ancient
00:17:31times. The EVM system is globally
00:17:34admired
00:17:38Now, if the Supreme Court has already
00:17:42decided that thing, you can go and file a curative petition
00:17:45against it. There is a legal system. But will
00:17:48you undermine an order of the Supreme Court with
00:17:52an illegal political procession? Will you go
00:17:55outside Mandi House, outside Doordarshan, and will there be
00:17:59a hearing there? No. The justice system in the Supreme Court
00:18:03will have to be followed by everyone.
00:18:06Their political and political... That is why
00:18:10I said that those who wave the Constitution, they
00:18:13should open and read the Constitution and understand
00:18:16its dignity. Similarly, the issue of SIR
00:18:20is being tried to be questioned. The issue of SIR, its
00:18:24constitutional legal validity has already been
00:18:27examined by the Supreme Court and it has been examined
00:18:30that its constitutionality has been continuously upheld, rather since the
00:18:33SIR started in Bihar, it has been happening continuously.
00:18:37Lalchand ji and in Bihar, out of 65
00:18:40lakh omissions, not even
00:18:44a single individual appeal has been filed. If
00:18:47someone's vote is cut, they will go
00:18:50and file an individual appeal themselves. When it was found that not
00:18:54a single individual appeal had been filed, some political parties filed
00:18:58a few selected 70-80 appeals, that too objecting
00:19:01to someone's name. But you should understand
00:19:04that when the SIR process omits 65
00:19:08lakh names, not a single appeal is filed,
00:19:14with which it is working. And that too when the Supreme Court had said,
00:19:18"Bring 15 names, we will cancel the entire SIR."
00:19:21It was found that many fake names were brought. That's why, look,
00:19:25I am saying that these omissions
00:19:29are all flawed entries. These are not names, and so far no names
00:19:32have been removed because this is a draft list. Everyone has the right.
00:19:36If someone feels their name has been wrongly cut,
00:19:39they can go and get it added. There are levels of appeal, and until
00:19:43the final list comes,
00:19:46the old list still holds. This is very clearly
00:19:50written in the Representation of People's Act.
00:19:53So, will our country run on such false propaganda,
00:19:57on the Constitution, on law,
00:19:59on truth, on arguments, on counter-arguments, or will it run on
00:20:03such fallacies and anyone says anything
00:20:06in the air?
00:20:15The way such a thing had never happened before,
00:20:18an attempt was made. After that, the Chief Justice
00:20:22wrote a letter and explained sufficiently
00:20:25why the request for a meeting was rejected.
00:20:29He explained in detail. After this,
00:20:32can we expect that at least no such other
00:20:36attempt will be made in the future, because of the way the Chief
00:20:40Justice explained everything and rejected
00:20:42the request for a meeting, will our leaders
00:20:46or political party workers not make any such request
00:20:50in the future? Somewhere, behind rejecting this request,
00:20:53the Chief Justice must have had this
00:20:57objective. Lalchand ji, you are absolutely
00:21:01right. Two things are very important. Look, this was an
00:21:05administrative
00:21:07function, the writing of the letter, not
00:21:11a judicial function. There was no judicial function in this,
00:21:14so there can be no appeal either. That's why I said this.
00:21:18First thing, second thing. Clearly stating the reasons,
00:21:21not just one reason, all things have been mentioned
00:21:25maturely in it, and after
00:21:29that, the letter has been sent. I think
00:21:32it is now impossible to approach
00:21:36again in any way, as you said.
00:21:39The answer given by the honorable
00:21:43CJI ji is absolutely not only mature
00:21:47but also self-explanatory. Recently,
00:21:59as we have seen, the tradition in this country has indeed been
00:22:03that especially after the Supreme Court gives a ruling,
00:22:07then political parties stop at that point, considering it
00:22:11the limit. Right.
00:22:14Nowadays, it is seen that some new organizations
00:22:17that have been formed
00:22:20go beyond that and target the judiciary
00:22:23as well, targeting the names of Supreme Court judges, the Chief
00:22:27Justice, including their names. Is it
00:22:31that some of our parties, some
00:22:34of our seasoned leaders,
00:22:38also started following the same path? That is why such
00:22:41an application was made for the first time, such a letter was written for the first
00:22:45time, saying, "Please give us time to meet, we want to present our views
00:22:49on this issue before you." Is it having some effect
00:22:52on some of our parties, some leaders, which is why the judiciary was approached
00:22:56in a way it had never
00:22:57been before?
00:23:03Please unmute your mic, sir.
00:23:05Yes,
00:23:08please speak, sir. You are absolutely right, Lalchandra ji.
00:23:12And this is a new
00:23:15tendency that has started to exert pressure on Supreme Court
00:23:19judges. A new tactic has begun
00:23:22that first you
00:23:25get a story published in a newspaper, then bring
00:23:29a political procession, then approach the court, and
00:23:33if things don't go in your favor in court, then
00:23:37you start to berate its credibility.
00:23:40You can criticize the judgment, but
00:23:44you start questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court itself.
00:23:48Fight elections.
00:23:50If you lose, then question the Election Commission that
00:23:54there is a problem here. I don't understand,
00:23:58Lalchandra ji, what the Leader of
00:24:00Opposition was asking a year ago,
00:24:04saying that there are errors in the voter list and they should be corrected. So today,
00:24:07how can votes be stolen? And
00:24:11vote theft, that is what happened, right? When, say, the list
00:24:14is being corrected, being cleaned, its sanctity is increasing,
00:24:18its accuracy is increasing,
00:24:21then that is welcome. That is true.
00:24:25Who can demand a faulty voter list?
00:24:30for a faulty voter list and say that we will contest elections with that? This is true, and the one
00:24:34who is saying it, Lalchandra ji,
00:24:37has a guilty conscience, so let him understand. Because why
00:24:40does he want to save fake names? If there are any wrong names
00:24:44in the list, and I also want
00:24:47to tell you that people are saying
00:24:50that 13 crore omissions have occurred. First of all, these 13 crore
00:24:53are not names that have been cut, these are flawed entries.
00:24:57Out of these, more than 4 crore people have died.
00:25:00Many people have changed their addresses.
00:25:04And the previous SIR, it happened
00:25:06in 2004, 22 years ago. And so far, all
00:25:10the SIRs that have happened were during opposition
00:25:14governments. Despite that, there is a provision, right, that if someone is genuinely a voter
00:25:17and they are currently on the list, and their name has been cut from
00:25:21the list, there are many provisions to get it added. This is a point that can be taken and no one's name has been cut yet.
00:25:25That's right. It's still a draft
00:25:28list, and anyone can go to appeal. So all this is
00:25:32false propaganda, but I am confident that politics
00:25:36will continue on this, politics will continue, but one thing is absolutely clear
00:25:39that the judiciary, the CJI, you should hold such
00:25:43programs so that public awareness increases and
00:25:47they know what the right message is.
00:26:02With this hope, as Sanjay Chaddha ji said, let's hope that
00:26:06this never happened before, and the way the CJI replied today,
00:26:10it never happens again because both have different
00:26:13rights, the judiciary and the executive. Thank you very
00:26:17much, Aman Sinha ji, Senior Advocate, and Sanjay Chaddha
00:26:21ji, Legal Expert. Thank you very much to both of you for joining this discussion. So,
00:26:25with this hope that the domains of the judiciary are different
00:26:28and those of the executive are different, both have different rights. Such
00:26:32things should not be dragged into politics in this way.
00:26:35That's all for today's discussion. Please allow the entire team. Namaste.
00:26:53When power comes into the hands of 11 Indians, India becomes
00:26:57the World Champion in the cricket field.
00:27:01Just imagine, when every Indian gets power, in how many other
00:27:04fields will India become the World Champion? That's why YONO gives
00:27:08power to every Indian. The all-new YONO, Power to Every
00:27:11Indian.
00:27:15My choice, my
00:27:17choice.
00:27:20My choice, my
00:27:22choice. Our
00:27:26choice.
00:27:28Everyone's choice. Strong country's strong rebar is
00:27:31steel.
00:28:02Monday to Friday, afternoon 2:30 PM, only
00:28:06on DD News. Here,
00:28:09the examination is not done with words, but with arguments.
00:28:11Here,
00:28:13it's not chaos, but an investigation of facts.
00:28:16Here, it's not just news,
00:28:19but evidence is given.
00:28:23Know everything that
00:28:26you. This is the complete truth because
00:28:29there is no news bigger than the truth.
00:29:02This is around you, know how it
00:29:06hides behind every why, it will give your scientific
00:29:09thinking a new spark, which will open
00:29:12the door to a new world. That is Science Spark.
00:29:49Hello and welcome to DD News. I am Gaurav Srivastava with you, and you are watching our
00:29:53special program, Khabar Duniya Ki. In today's episode of Khabar Duniya Ki, we will talk about
00:29:56Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia amid tensions in West Asia.
00:30:00We will also talk about
00:30:32the last battle of Houthis to capture the city of Taiz in Yemen.
00:30:36The humanitarian crisis deepened due to the strict siege of the city
00:30:40Medical equipment and fuel are on the verge of running out. The ground forces claim to have killed about
00:30:4460 fighters.
00:30:46दावा
00:30:50Ukrainian President Zelensky claims that Russia bombed energy facilities immediately after Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire.
00:30:54के तुरंत बाद रूस ने ऊर्जा ठिकानों पर बरसाए बम ट्रंप
00:30:58Trump claims both sides have agreed.