CJI Chandrachud: Even in the context of privacy in puttuswamy or in the Vishaka case, the framework set out by the court has to be fleshed out by the legislature.
The test really is, how far can the courts go?
Justice Bhat: When you are casting a positive obligation on the lawmakers. Is it possible to presuppose the creation of law? How do we weave out an obligation or a mandate?
CJI Chandrachud: So comparing this with the British parliament may not be a correct one.
CJI Chandrachud: So the question really is which are the interstices left in which this court can interfere.
CJI Chandrachud: You cannot dispute that parliament has the powers to interfere with the canvas covered by these petitions. Entry 5 of the concurrent list. It specially covers marriage and divorce.
Guruswamy: The Indian Parliament is a creature of the constitution and does not enjoy unfettered powers.
Guruswamy: The govt cannot come to court that this is a matter of the parliament. When our Article rights are being violated, we have the right to come to this court under Art. 32.
Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy: The second point I'd like to raise is of judicial review which part of the basic structure doctrine.
Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy: In India the parliamentary system is constrained unlike in England. Constrained by the constitution interpreted by the Judiciary.
Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy: This was most the nerve wracking lunch of my life.