Summoning Senior Officials by Courts : The Law

Justice Katju

The Supreme Court in R.S. Singh Vs. U.P.Malaria Nirikshak Sangh has that the High Courts ordinarily should not summon the senior officials of the government and that should only be done in very rare and exceptional cases when there are compelling circumstances to do so. While examining various judicial pronouncements on the subject, the Court held as under;

6. In State of Gujarat vs. Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani, AIR 2008 SC 86, this Court observed: 

"6. A large number of cases have come up before this Court where we find that learned Judges of various High Courts have been summoning the Chief Secretary, Secretaries to the government (Central and State), Director Generals of Police, Director, CBI or BSF or other senior officials of the government. 

7. There is no doubt that the High Court has power to summon these officials, but in our opinion that should be done in very rare and exceptional cases when there are compelling circumstances to do so. Such summoning orders should not be passed lightly or as a routine or at the drop of a hat. 

8. Judges should have modesty and humility. They should realize that summoning a senior official, except in some very rare and exceptional situation, and that too for compelling reasons, is counter productive and may also involve heavy expenses and valuable time of the official concerned. 

9. The judiciary must have respect for the executive and the legislature. Judges should realize that officials like the Chief Secretary, Secretary to the government, Commissioners, District Magistrates, senior police officials etc. are extremely busy persons who are often working from morning till night. No doubt, the ministers lay down the policy, but the actual implementation of the policy and day to day running of the government has to be done by the bureaucrats, and hence the bureaucrats are often working round the clock. If they are summoned by the Court they will, of course, appear before the Court, but then a lot of public money and time may be unnecessarily wasted. Sometimes High Court Judges summon high officials in far off places like Director, CBI or Home Secretary to the Government of India not realizing that it entails heavy expenditure like arranging of a BSF aircraft, coupled with public money and valuable time which would have been otherwise spent on public welfare. 

10. Hence, frequent, casual and lackadaisical summoning of high officials by the Court cannot be appreciated. We are constrained to make these observations because we are coming across a large number of cases where such orders summoning of high officials are being passed by the High Courts and often it is nothing but for the ego satisfaction of the learned Judge. 

11. We do not mean to say that in no circumstances and on no occasion should an official be summoned by the Court. In some extreme and compelling situation that may be done, but on such occasions also the senior official must be given proper respect by the Court and he should not be humiliated. Such senior officials need not be made to stand all the time when the hearing is going on, and they can be offered a chair by the Court to sit. They need to stand only when answering or making a statement in the Court. The senior officials too have their self-respect, and if the Court gives them respect they in turn will respect the Court. Respect begets respect. 

12. It sometimes happens that a senior official may not even know about the order of the High Court. For example, if the High Court stays the order of the Collector of suspension of a class- III or class IV employee in a government department, and certified copy of that order is left with the Clerk in the office of the Collector, it often happens that the Collector is not even aware of the order as he has gone on tour and he may come to know about it only after a few days. In the meantime a contempt of court notice is issued against him by the Court summoning him to be personally present in Court. In our opinion, this should not be readily done, because there is no reason why the Collector would not obey the order of the High Court. In such circumstances, the Court should only request the government counsel to inform the concerned Collector about the earlier order of the Court which may not have been brought to the notice of the Collector concerned, and the High Court can again list the case after a week or two. Almost invariably it will be found that as soon as the Collector comes to know about the stay order of the High Court, he orders compliance of it. 

13. In the present case, we find no occasion or reason for the learned Judge to summon the Chief Secretary or the Law Secretary by the impugned order. If the learned Judge was concerned about the lack of enough Stenographers in the office of the Public Prosecutor he could have called the Advocate General or Govt. Advocate to his chamber and have asked him to convey the Court's displeasure to the government, but where was the need to summon the Chief Secretary or Law Secretary? Hence, we set aside the impugned interim order dated 11.4.2007 and condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the High Court. The High Court may now proceed to hear the Criminal Appeal in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed." 

7. Following the above decision, this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Jasvir Singh & Ors, JT 2011(1) SC 446, observed : 

"7. It is a matter of concern that there is a growing trend among a few Judges of the High Court to routinely and frequently require the presence, in court, of senior officers of the government and local and other authorities, including officers of the level of Secretaries, for perceived non-compliance with its suggestions or to seek insignificant clarifications. The power of the High Court under Article 226 is no doubt very wide. It can issue to any person or authority or government, directions, orders, writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. The High Court has the power to summon or require the personal presence of any officer, to assist the court to render justice or arrive at a proper decision. But there are well settled norms and procedures for exercise of such power. 8. This court has repeatedly noticed that the real power of courts is not in passing decrees and orders, nor in punishing offenders and contemnors, nor in summoning the presence of senior officers, but in the trust, faith and confidence of the common man in the judiciary. Such trust and confidence should not be frittered away by unnecessary and unwarranted show or exercise of power. Greater the power, greater should be the responsibility in exercising such power. The normal procedure in writ petitions is to hear the parties through their counsel who are instructed in the matter, and decide them by examining the pleadings/affidavit/evidence/documents/material. Where the court seeks any information about the compliance with any of its directions, it is furnished by affidavits or reports supported by relevant documents. Requiring the presence of the senior officers of the government in court should be as a last resort, in rare and exceptional cases, where such presence is absolutely necessary, as for example, where it is necessary to seek assistance in explaining complex policy or technical issues, which the counsel is not able to explain properly. The court may also require personal attendance of the officers, where it finds that any officer is deliberately or with ulterior motives withholding any specific information required by the court which he is legally bound to provide or has misrepresented or suppressed the correct position. 9. Where the State has a definite policy or taken a specific stand and that has been clearly explained by way of affidavit, the court should not attempt to impose a contrary view by way of suggestions or proposals for settlement. A court can of course express its views and issue directions through its reasoned orders, subject to limitations in regard to interference in matters of policy. But it should not, and in fact, it cannot attempt to impose its views by asking an unwilling party to settle on the terms suggested by it. At all events the courts should avoid directing the senior officers to be present in court to settle the grievances of individual litigants for whom the court may have sympathy. The court should realize that the state has its own priorities, policies and compulsions which may result in a particular stand. Merely because the court does not like such a stand, it cannot summon or call the senior officers time and again to court or issue threatening show cause notices. The senior officers of the government are in-charge of the administration of the State, have their own busy schedules. The court should desist from calling them for all and sundry matters, as that would amount to abuse of judicial power. Courts should guard against such transgressions in the exercise of power." 

(emphasis supplied) 

8. We are pained to observe that despite our decision in State of Gujarat vs. Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani (supra) many High Courts are persisting in summoning executive officials where it was not absolutely necessary to summon them. It is possible that our judgment in the aforesaid decision has not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judges in many of the High Courts and it may also be that the subsequent decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Jasvir Singh (supra) has not been brought to their notice. Consequently we are coming across many orders where High Court Judges are summoning executive officials routinely, casually, and sometimes even at thedrop of a hat. This is most improper. 

9. We are constrained to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across a large number of cases where such orders summoning high officials are being passed by the High Courts and often it is only for the ego satisfaction of the learned Judge. Judges should not have any ego problems. In particular, members of the higher judiciary (High Court and Supreme Court) should have great modesty and humility. This is because the higher one moves in the hierarchy the greater become his powers. Hence, unless one has modesty and humility, he may play havoc. High Court Judges have tremendous powers, but the beauty lies in not exercising those powers except where absolutely necessary. Flaunting these powers unnecessarily only brings the judiciary into disrepute. Some of the greatest Judges have been the most modest, e.g., Justice Holmes, Judge Learned Hand, Justice Brandeis, Justice Cardozo, Lord Atkins, Lord Denning, Justice Venkatachaliah, etc. At the same time, we make it clear that we have also come across cases where orders of the Courts are deliberately ignored by government officials which is not proper. Democracy and the rule of law requires that the orders of the Courts should be complied with by the executive authorities promptly and with due diligence. If the executive authorities are dissatisfied with a High Court order, they may appeal against that order to the Supreme court but it is not proper to ignore such orders. In our opinion, if the High Court finds that its order has not been complied with, it shall first see whether the order can be complied with without summoning any official and for that purpose it can ask the Advocate General, Additional Advocate General or Chief Standing Counsel or some other counsel of the State to communicate to the concerned official that there is some order of the Court which has not been complied with. Ordinarily, this will suffice because we see no reason as to why the executive authorities will not comply with the orders of the court. It is only in some extreme case where the High Court is convinced that deliberately the order of the court has been ignored in a spirit of defiance that it may summon the official to explain why the order of the court has not been complied with. The system functions on mutual respect between the judiciary and the executive. While the judiciary must respect the executive, at the same time, the executive must also respect the judiciary. If we do not respect each other, the system will collapse. 

10. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in summoning the aforementioned officials. Following the decision in Turabali's case(supra) and Jasvir Singh's case (supra), this appeal is allowed and consequently the direction of the High Court summoning Principal Secretary, Finance along with Principal Secretary, Medical & health is set aside. The Contempt Petition shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously. A copy of this order will be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts, who shall circulate copies to the learned Judges of the High Courts. The Chief Justices of the High Courts, in particular, shall bring this judgment to the notice of all Hon'ble Judges of the Court, with the request that they follow this decision, in letter and spirit. A copy of this order will also be sent to the Cabinet Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi as well as to all the Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories.

Deposition by Child Witnesses : The Law

Justice Chauhan

The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Ramesh & Anr., has examined the law relating to deposition by Child Witnesses. While examining the law on the aspect the Court has observed that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the Court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the Court may rely upon his evidence. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;

CHILD WITNESS :

6. In Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, this Court examined the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of Evidence Act, 1872 and held that every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise.

The Court further held as under:

".....It is desirable that Judges and magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the witness may be seriously affected, so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the Magistrate or Judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate...."

7. In Mangoo & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 959, this Court while dealing with the evidence of a child witness observed that there was always scope to tutor the child, however, it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored. The Court must determine as to whether the child has been tutored or not. It can be ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof as to whether there are any traces of tutoring.

8. In Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that "the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring."

9. In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 1460, this Court dealing with the child witness has observed as under:

"The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make-believe. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness."

10. The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern between right and wrong and the court may find out from the cross- examination whether the defence lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and wrong. The court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by putting questions to him and even if no such questions had been put, it may be gathered from his evidence as to whether he fully understood the implications of what he was saying and whether he stood discredited in facing a stiff cross-examination. A child witness must be able to understand the sanctity of giving evidence on a oath and the import of the questions that were being put to him. (Vide: Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2292).

11. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3071, this Court held that there is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the facts in his memory. A child is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious nature.

12. Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from untutored part, in case such remaining untutored part inspires confidence. In such an eventuality the untutored part can be believed or at least taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. (Vide: Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516).

13. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.

Challenge to Arbitration Award & Limitation : The Law

Justice Aftab Alam

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd., examined whether the period of limitation for making an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award is to be reckoned from the date a copy of the award is received by the objector by any means and from any source, or it would start running from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to him by the arbitrator?

9. The High Court upheld the submissions made on behalf of the claimant-respondent, affirmed the view taken by the Principal District Judge and by judgment and order dated October 6, 2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. It took note of section 31(5) and section 34(3) of the Act and the decision of this Court in Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors but rejected the appellant's contention highlighting that the word used in section 31(5) is `delivered' and not `dispatched'. The High Court held and observed as follows:

"17. It is to be noted that sub-section (5) of Section 31 prescribes that after arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be `delivered' to each party. The word `delivered' appearing in Section 31(5) cannot be equated with `dispatched'. A distinction has to be made between these two words. The `Shorter Oxford English Dictionary' gives meaning of the word `delivered' as, "to bring and handover a letter, a parcel to the proper recipient or address". "Deliver" means: (i) bring and handover (a letter or goods) to the proper recipient; formally hand over (someone); and (iii) provide (something promised or expected). Thus, what is important is that the copy of the award should be handed over to the proper recipient or addressee. In this view of the matter, sub-section (5) of Section 31 does not require that a copy of the arbitral award should be sent off by the Arbitrator to the concerned party, but it is required that copy of the arbitral award be handed over to the proper parties.

18. In the instant matter, admittedly the copy of award was received by the Executive Engineer in the month of April 2003. However, appellants did not act till January 2004 for about nine months. Thus, for their inaction, appellants have to blame only themselves. In the instant matter, it cannot be said that there is non compliance of sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of 1996. There is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 31(5), as admittedly, appellants received copy of the award in the month of April, 2003. Appellants thereafter did not take steps in respect of raising challenge to the award and allowed the matter to remain in cold storage. The delay occasioned in presenting the application is essentially because of the lapses committed by the appellants only."

10. The appellants are now before this court by grant of special leave. The two provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relevant to answer the question raised in the case are sections 31 and 34. Section 31 deals with `form and contents of arbitral award; and in so far as relevant for the present provides as follows:

"31. Form and contents of arbitral award.- (1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal.

(2) xxxxxxxxxxx

(3) xxxxxxxxxxx

(4) xxxxxxxxxxx

(5) After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party.

(6), (7), (8) xxxxxxxxxxx

(emphasis added)

Section 31(1) obliges the members of the arbitral tribunal/arbitrator to make the award in writing and to sign it and sub-section (5) then mandates that a signed copy of the award would be delivered to each party. A signed copy of the award would normally be delivered to the party by the arbitrator himself. The High Court clearly overlooked that what was required by law was the delivery of a copy of the award signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator and not any copy of the award.

11. Section 34 of the Act then provides for filing an application for setting aside an arbitral award, and sub-section (3) of that section lays down the period of limitation for making the application in the following terms: "34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.-(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub- section (2) and sub-section (3).

(2) xxxxxxx

(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.

(4) xxxxxxx"

The expression "..party making that application had received the arbitral award.." can not be read in isolation and it must be understood in light of what is said earlier in section 31(5) that requires a signed copy of the award to be delivered to each party. Reading the two provisions together it is quite clear that the limitation prescribed under section 34 (3) would commence only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside.

12. We are supported in our view by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239; in paragraph 8 of the decision it was held and observed as follows: "8. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section (5) of Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter of substance. It is only after the stage under Section 31 has passed that the stage of termination of arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act arises. The delivery of arbitral award to the party, to be effective, has to be "received" by the party. This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by the party of the award sets in motion several periods of limitation such as an application for correction and interpretation of an award within 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4) and an application for setting aside an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which would be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings." (emphasis added)

13. The highlighted portion of the judgment extracted above, leaves no room for doubt that the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act would start running only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to/received by the party making the application for setting it aside under section 34(1) of the Act. The legal position on the issue may be stated thus. If the law prescribes that a copy of the order/award is to be communicated, delivered, dispatched, forwarded, rendered or sent to the parties concerned in a particular way and in case the law also sets a period of limitation for challenging the order/award in question by the aggrieved party, then the period of limitation can only commence from the date on which the order/award was received by the party concerned in the manner prescribed by the law.

14. We may here refer to a decision of the Patna High Court in Dr. Sheo Shankar Sahay v. Commissioner, Patna Division and Ors., 1965 BLJR 78. Section 18(1) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 prescribed a period of limitation of 15 days for filing an appeal against an order of the House Controller and provided as follows: "any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such order by him, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority" It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court that the order-sheet of the House Controller was shown to the lawyer of the respondent on June 10, 1959 and therefore, that would be the starting point of limitation under section 18(1) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. A division bench of the High Court consisting of Chief Justice V. Ramaswami (as his Lordship then was) and Justice N.L. Untwalia (as his Lordship then was) rejected the submission observing as follows:

"2. ... But we shall assume that the petitioner is right in alleging that the order was shown to the lawyer on the 10th June, 1959. Even so, we are of opinion that the appeal preferred by respondent no.4 before the Collector of Shahabad was not barred by limitation. The reason is that Sec. 18(1) provides limitation of fifteen days "from the date of receipt of the order" and not from the date of communication of the order. It is significant that Sec. 14 of the Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942, had provided that "any person aggrieved by an order of the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, present an appeal in writing to the Commissioner of the division". Sec. 18(1) of Bihar Act III of 1949 is couched in different language. In our opinion, Sec. 18(1) implies that the Controller is bound, as a matter of law, to send a written copy of his order to the person aggrieved, and limitation for filing an appeal does not start unless and until the copy of the order is sent. In the present case it is not disputed that no copy of the order was sent to respondent no.4. It is true that the respondent himself applied for a copy of the order on the 11th December, 1959, and obtained a copy on the 14th December, 1959. In any event, therefore, limitation will not start running against respondent no.4 under Sec. 18(1) of the Act till the 14th December, 1959, and as the appeal was filed on the 26th December, 1959, there is no bar of limitation in this case...."

(emphasis added)

15. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Sheo Shankar Sahay.

16. In light of the discussions made above we find the impugned order of the Bombay High Court unsustainable. The High Court was clearly in error not correctly following the decision of this Court in Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors and in taking a contrary view. The High Court overlooked that what section 31(5) contemplates is not merely the delivery of any kind of a copy of the award but a copy of the award that is duly signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal.

PJ Thomas to File Review Petition in Supreme Court

Source: NDTV


Former Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) P J Thomas has decided to move the Supreme Court seeking review by a Constitution bench of its March 3 judgement quashing his appointment, claiming that judiciary has no right to decide his eligibility for the post without prior reference from the President.

His counsel Wills Matthews said that Thomas was waiting for the Centre to file a review petition and in the event of it not being filed, the former CVC would file it before April 2.

A review petition has to be filed within 30 days of the judgement.

On March 3 the Supreme Court quashed the appointment of Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner, holding that the recommendation made by the high-powered panel -- headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh -- did not consider the relevant material and therefore its advice "does not exist in law".

Thomas, in his review petition, has submitted that the Supreme Court should not have quashed his appointment without first allowing him to establish his innocence or otherwise in the palmolein case.

"The Supreme Court is having the power to initiate the proceeding for the removal of CVC, only on a reference made to by the President, and as such there in no reference of Her Excellency the President of India in the present matter, and hence, I fear whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction on an issue in which it was not having the jurisdiction.

"This point requires further research and we are studying this issue. In case the Court exercised the power which it was not having, it is a void ab initio matter.

"In every fairness ,these issues require reconsideration ,and I am of the definite opinion that the Office of the President of India cannot be treated as a rubber stamp, and while interpreting the provisions of the provisions of the Constitution connected with the powers of the President of India, the CVC Act, the court cannot go against the basic structure of the constitution. The Constitution is supreme," the former CVC contended.