Thread by @dikgaj

1) The CA had a large contingent of those educated in the imperial British system, and practitioners in the colonial judicial system. So they wd be expected to put themselves on different pedestal. But the actual debates throw up surprisingly modern contrarian views: I cite a few

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1464217151485595660

This is B.Das moving amendment during the discussions in session on 24th May, 1949, Constituent Assembly. Here is a surprisingly candid outburst and shows that contrary to propaganda, even the CA debates did not show an unreserved faith in ability, impartiality of judiciary.

Das's comments continued: my pet peeve on dress code. Its not a question of mere fashion: its a much deeper issue of image sending out social signals.

Bakshi Tek Chand: shows what faith they had on the ideological neutrality of the sitting judges in their experience.

Here comes perhaps one of the crucial pieces to show what members of the CA actually had on their minds when "reposing" their "faith" in judiciary - this one is from B.R.Ambedkar- so none will dare dismiss it.

This is not a thread to cite all the debates. But reading them immediately raises points that go against the impression that has long been sought to be created abt the CA debates somehow supporting whatever position the judicial establishment wants to enshrine.

the debates on 24th May spend a huge amount of time debating retirement of judges, remuneration and post-judicial gainful employment. The retirement debate is sadly amusing as it sometimes reduces to asserting the youthfulness of "old men" and premature senility of "youth".

One can't but help wonder from the tone of the debate if the CA members were not showing as much fear of the "common immature" masses as that of youth in a shared herd of sheep to be excluded, and tamed. Disturbing yet expected, given limited constituency which had elected them.

I urge all to read the CA debates of 24 May, 1949: and note the constant fear of judiciary going astray if not paid well. I think none who use the CA debates to push establishment views, realize this irony and self-contradiction on issue of presumed proof of faith in judiciary.

one gets the feeling of a bunch of "old men" who are over conscious of their frailties as "old men", who deem the society that brought them forth as too "immature" to be allowed the trust reposed in 'masses" of countries they constantly cite otherwise as models, USA/UK,

Almost like a petulant teen missing the father he could neither tolerate in power nor do without to face all these other lesser beings in whose name he quarreled with the father, who by sheer numbers might overwhelm him and legitimately claim power for themselves.