Govt. submits grounds for appeal
|
|
The painstakingly drafted document is 77 pages long and divided into eight parts First Hearing 11 January, 2011 - The government’s legal arm turned up at the Supreme Court with a 77-page dense submission during its first hearing yesterday.
It was following almost a month since the court registered their appeal against the High Court judgment that went in favour of the opposition party. The submission was segregated into eight parts, which included general grounds of appeal, the origin of the case at parliament in June 2010, reasons for inadmissibility of opposition leader seeking judiciary intervention and the constitutionality of the high court considering matters under legislative process among others. Attorney general Phuntsho Wangdi, who presented the submission, requested the three justices at the court for three days, over a span of which the submission could be read out to the justices. Justice Tshering Wangchuk denied this, saying that the very purpose of handing them the document a few days earlier than the hearing was so they would have read it. The purpose of such a hearing, he explained, was for the attorney general to explain in brevity the salient features of the submission, which the justices could tally with the document and ask questions. The submission was condensed to a mere 15 or so pages. Phuntsho Wangdi began reading the general grounds for appeal. He said the appellant was unable to comprehend the ruling of the High Court in interpreting sales tax Act, public finance Act and the Constitution, both in intent and purpose. “The government has been empowered to revise the taxes by these two Acts,” he said, adding the government did so for uniform income distribution that would benefit those at the grassroots. “Hence, we appeal to the Supreme Court, since it’s the final interpreter of the law,” he said. He said public interest in principle, covered the public at large, which, in the present context of the tax, covered only a few groups of people. The revision, he read out, was done, bearing in mind the larger interest of the country. The High Court’s interpretation of article 18, sections 1 and 5 of the Constitution, extended the opposition’s role, besides from that at parliament. Should they fail to reach an outcome of their wish at the parliament, he said, they could take it up with the court; and the two constitutional provisions cited did not allow for that. “Opposition’s role has to be confined to the parliament,” he said, reiterating that the opposition leader, being a member of Parliament, should have limited his role within the legislature, by promoting and engaging in a constructive and a responsible debate at the Parliament in accordance with article 18, section 3 of the Constitution. By admitting the case, despite lack of locus standi (Latin for legal standing), Phuntsho Wangdi said the court permitted the opposition leader to perform his non-legislative function. That, he said, would lead to undermining the basic principle of the egalitarian rule of democracy. That legal standing was bereft, without availing consent of all concerned party members in writing and counter signed by secretary general of the National Assembly. Besides article 18, sections 1 and 5 do not allow the opposition leader to take legislative matters before the court, further leaving it devoid of legal standing, which was unfulfilling of requirements of law. However, such precedents, he feared, might lead to far reaching implications, by bringing conflict between and among the three branches of the government. The opposition leader could neither prove any public interest in opposing the tax revision, nor was he able to prove how the sales tax Act affected him, and the High Court, Phuntsho Wangdi said, abandoned the rule of locus standi, by using the principle of public interest. The High Court also failed to observe separation of power that the Constitution mandated, when it considered a legislative matter and admitted without verification with the Constitution. Delving into the subject, Phuntsho Wangdi said the very purpose of a majority rule in a democracy was so the majority in agreement would resolve issues, which more often than not met with disagreements. “But if the unhappy minority can take the matter to court, grave issues await us in future,” he said. Further elaborating, the attorney general explained the very precedent of parliamentary members seeking judiciary intervention, whenever they were unable to impose their will against the majority, would undermine the very basis of democracy. “It’s providing an alternative mechanism to not just the opposition parties, but any Parliament member in future,” he said. “Thus leading to undermining one arm of the government by another.” Opposition party representative at the court Damchoe Dorji, who was handed a copy of the submission, requested for nine days to respond. “Our response will be more or less the same as our petition,” he said. Looking at the lofty document, he said, it might not be necessary for them to respond in a similar manner. By Samten Wangchuk |
|
Comments