Judge's implicit assumptions are four folds of absurdity: a democratic constitution must not reflect the majority view, values r independent of society, a non-representative minority(judiciary) can decide which minority views the majority must submit to. livelaw.in/top-stories/co…
Time and again judiciary appears to insist on the ludicrous patently subversive for a democracy - claim - that the Constitution is above the people. That its like Abrahamic revelations, decided by divinely appointed theologians, and thrown at mere mortals to be implicitly obeyed.
The demand that Constitution must be allowed to go against majority opinion, on values that are unquestionable, and only to be decided over for changes as per a small group of people unaccountable to the people who will be affected by those changes -is dictatorship not democracy.
The Constitution was framed by people elected by a tiny minority of Indians, and never given for ratification by the full electorate. Its been made a dangerously hypocritical unalterable "holy-revealed-text" while making numerous amendments untraceable to its constituent assembly
Constitution, state form is at the will of people - in a democracy that does imply will of the majority, values of the majority. People are the masters not slaves of any given Constitution -as it is creation of a people of a particular time and place, and subject to future change
