Agnipath scheme petitions: Socrates once said that when the debate or argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers. Apparently, this is exactly what is happening in India. The opposition has been getting repeated setbacks in every manner possible, which have made them sour losers, and hence the irritating anti-democracy ranting is being amplified on any pretext possible.
On the electoral front, the majority of voters are not buying the opposition’s theory of victimhood, and institutions have refused to bow down in front of their false cry. These institutions have refused to offer any carry favours in their desperate urge to seek validation from this cynical bunch of losers. Now, in a massive humiliation for the opposition, the Supreme Court has virtually junked their rhetorical claims on the Agnipath Scheme.
Agnipath Scheme: Valid, not arbitrary
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Agnipath recruitment scheme. The court dismissed two petitions that had challenged the Delhi High Court verdict on Agnipath scheme passed earlier in January this year.
Supreme Court rejects two pleas pertaining to challenging Delhi High Court order upholding govt's Agnipath scheme for entry into Armed Forces and affirms the validity of the scheme.
Court lists for April 17 to hear another plea related to recruitment in IAF prior to the…
— ANI (@ANI) April 10, 2023
The two petitions had sought directions to complete the previous Agnipath scheme recruitment processes for the Army and Air Force. Apparently, those recruitment drives were cancelled after the formal announcement of the Agnipath Scheme in June 2022.
The three-judge bench stated that candidates who were previously chosen for the defence forces through recruitment procedures, including rallies and physical and medical exams, do not have a vested right to appointment.
The apex court opined that public interests outweighed other considerations. The three-judge bench was comprised of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha, and JB Pardiwala. The bench said, “Sorry, we would not like to interfere with the high court verdict.” “The high court had dealt with all the aspects.”
The bench also rejected the argument that the ‘doctrine of promissory estoppel’ will apply in this case. It stated that the decision to not proceed with the previous recruitment processes could not be termed arbitrary.
The bench gave the rationale that promissory estoppel will not apply when larger public interests are involved. CJI Chandrachud stated that there is nothing for them to interfere with and that it is a matter of public employment, not a contract.
Also read: Fake News Alert: Indian Express claims “caste based reservation” in Agnipath scheme
The legal arguments
Petitioners counsel Arunava Mukherjee clarified before the bench that he is not challenging the Agnipath scheme, but rather the matter is limited to the completion of the previously notified recruitment processes for the Army and Air Force. He argued that the central government postponed the exams multiple times, citing the COVID pandemic. However, in June, this was all of a sudden replaced by the Agnipath scheme.
He added that the Air Force exams were held, but only the results were published. Going further, he highlighted the fact that the Union government had only postponed the exams; they were never cancelled.
Responding to this argument, CJI Chandrachud observed that there was no vested interest on the part of the government in doing so. CJI said, “So the process that began earlier—physical and medical tests—happened, but the entrance test didn’t happen. And when the new scheme came, they decided not to go ahead with it at all. But there is no vested right, ultimately.”
The counsel urged the bench that the Agnipath scheme would not be affected even if the students were inducted. However, the Union government’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, apprised the bench that the Delhi High Court’s judgement has already dealt with these issues in detail.
ASG added that the process was not pick-and-choose. The government had to fill the vacancies in the interests of defence and national interest.
Also read: Agnipath is BJP’s private militia, courtesy of our genius opposition
The bench also dismissed the second petition that was filed by Advocate ML Sharma. Mr. Sharma’s main argument was that the scheme could not have been introduced through an executive order and that a parliamentary law was needed. But these two petitions against Agnipath scheme were dismissed by the three-judge bench.
In addition to these two petitions, Supreme Court Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued in favour of the third petition. He argued that the doctrine of ‘promissory estoppel’ will apply in this case. To which CJI replied and said, “Frankly. Mr. Bhushan, there is no vested right here. It’s not arbitrary in the circumstances.”
However, at the earnest request of Mr. Bhushan, the bench agreed to consider his petition separately on April 17. Earlier, on February 27, the Delhi High Court said that the Agnipath scheme was formulated in the national interest. It added that it had the laudable objective of maintaining national security. The bench has also asked the Centre to file its response to the third plea, which pertains to recruitment in the IAF.
Also read: Lt. Gen Puri blasts the anti-Agnipath lobby, asserts no rollback
Lobby tries to hold Judiciary hostage in their caged perspective
After his retirement, Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi revealed before media houses that there is a certain lobby that puts undue pressure on the judiciary to give a verdict in their favour; otherwise, they do everything possible to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary, including the apex court.
Back then, he had said, “Independence of the judiciary means breaking the stranglehold of a dozen people over it. Unless this stranglehold is broken, the judiciary cannot be independent. They hold judges to ransom. If a case is not decided in a particular way advocated by them, they malign the judge in every way possible. I fear for the status quo judges, who do not want to take them on and who want to retire peacefully.”
The same has been observed time and again. For making unfounded, baseless, and manufactured narratives and falsehoods, the opposition has been getting a tight slap from the judiciary. So far, they have been humiliated in the Rafale, Pegasus, Demonetization, 2002 case against then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi, Ram Temple, or the recent Agnipath recruitment scheme.
Now, on account of their own incompetence and inability to corner the incumbent government on genuine issues like farmer distress, the skill gap in new passouts, and market demand, among others, they will increase their rhetoric of the death of democracy. In the upcoming time, especially in the election year, these voices will keep repeating these cliches and rhetorical charges on loop. Some of which are as follows:
Democracy is backsliding in India. India is now an electoral autocracy. The West should intervene in India. Soros is the last saviour of human rights in India. EVMs are hacked, an unaccounted emergency has been imposed, and opposition voices are being trampled. The media and key officials of the premier institutions have been compromised. Institutions have been compromised, there will be no elections in the future if they don’t come back to power, and so on.
However, no matter how desperately they try to present Indian democracy in a bad light, the matter of fact is that these independent democratic institutions will judge matters on their merit, and from time to time they have been issuing stern messages to both the opposition and the ruling dispensation. However, if opposition still finds loopholes, which are possible in a gigantic system especially present in India, they can galvanise the voters, the real power of any democracy, in their favour and fix these loopholes, but for that too cynical opposition, victim mindset, and anti-democracy ranting, it will not do them any good.
They should stop whining and acting like sour losers and get some rationale and logic and do constructive criticism of policies and issues rather than blindly judging things in black and white and projecting themselves as the only true successors to power.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
