[Mr. Vice-President, there is no doubt that Prof. Shah has raised a question of great constitutional importance. Unfortunately, however, he is a little too late. This Assembly has already discussed the question and taken a decision in favour of Parliamentary system of Government and, on the basis of that decision, the entire Constitution has been drafted by the Drafting Committee. So, unless a revolutionary change of opinion has taken place among the majority of Members, Prof. Shah’s position is hardly a practicable one at the present moment. Therefore I do not want to go in detail into this question of the Presidential versus parliamentary executive. I may remark, Sir, that this so-called complete separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers is, even in the American Constitution, a myth to a considerable extent. Though the Supreme Court of the United States is said to be completely separate from the executive, we have seen how President after President has tried to manipulate the Supreme Court by appointing judges to suit his own views. Whenever there has been a conflict between the President and the Supreme Court, the President has had only to wait till some judge retired and then put in his own nominee in his place and get judgments in his own favour. Therefore, so long as the President is the ultimate appointing authority, the authority of the judiciary has to some extent to be dependent on the executive. But, so far as our Constitution is concerned, it lays down that our Supreme Court will be as independent of the executive and the legislature as the Supreme Court of the United States. To that extent Prof. Shah’s desires have been fulfilled in the Constitution.
