Ahigh-profile advocate and litigator, Lalit Bhasin has taken over as the president of Bar Association of India for the second time. He was first elected in 2016.

For this legal luminary, the priority is to get ‘obsolete laws’ rationalised during his second term of two years. In an interview to AJITA SINGH, Bhasin said dissent of views and voices in a democracy is not a disaster but a boon. Excerpts:

Q: What is your priority as new president of Bar Association of India?

A: We have too many obsolete laws. These need rationalisation. My plan is to look into such laws. Parliament, executive and judiciary must make efforts to bring them in tune with present day reality.

Q: Of late, some crucial judgments have been divided into majority and minority. Dissent by one or two judges makes a verdict controversial, leaving it open to politicisation. Your opinion.

A: Dissent in a democracy is healthy. Not a disaster. Every view is to be respected. All sections of society need to be heard and represented. So, a judgment where judges differ in their opinion is the backbone of a democratic set-up. Judges too are human beings and hence entitled to their viewpoints. Some may be propoor, pro-women or leaning towards weaker sections. However, the majority view prevails. But politicisation of judgements is not acceptable.

Q:Please highlight ramifications of some controversial SC judgments like decriminalisation of sections 377 and 497 of Indian Penal Code.

A: Well, rationalisation of law and relationships has started in right earnest with judiciary taking the lead. Finally, the LGBT community has got its rights validated.

Q: Your view on the verdict declaring parts of IPC Section 377 unconstitutional, to legalise consensual same-sex relations.

A: Now, LGBT community is free to live with and love the person of their choice without the law breathing down their neck. They need not live in constant fear of persecution from the law. This means there is absolutely no problem with them doing whatever they want with their partners, in privacy. The court does not treat the mindset of LGBTQ as a mental disorder, unnatural or immoral that needs to be cured.

The freedom, however, is only to the extent that their actions do not impinge on someone else’s right to life and liberty. The greatest advantage is that their rights are protected by the law, no one can exploit these people for being gay, bisexual, lesbian or transgender. They can enjoy the same rights of being a citizen of India, irrespective of sexual preferences.

Q: Do you see decriminalisation of adultery law leading to more extra-marital affairs? Is it a right decision in your view?

A: The Supreme Court judgment declaring the 150-year-old adultery law unconstitutional, by striking down section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with section 198 of Cr P C, has finally ended an arbitrary legislation in favour of the husband. By removing shackles of married women, the court has also ended discrimination between married and unmarried women as this legal provision was in violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It means greater freedom, equality and independence for women who get trapped in a hopeless marriage that may not be their fault as they too have physical, emotional needs to be taken care of.

Q: Won’t it prove to be a blow to the institution of marriage in India? Will it erode sanctity of marriage in the long run?

A: Not really. the Supreme Court has ended discrimination but not given sanction for extra-marital affairs. The repercussions that come with such relations have not been diluted or relieved with immediate effect. So, willfully no one would like to jeopardise their happily married life.

Besides, everyone should know that adultery is still a ground for divorce and the social trauma associated with it and rules of alimony are still valid. Apart from that, the concept of sacrosanct marriages is not there anymore as several issues, like compatibility are surfacing.

Q: Your comment on protests against Supreme Court verdicts and exercise of willful disobedience of apex court orders. Do you think the top court is losing its supremacy?

A: No such thing at all. The court only interprets a law that our legislature makes. So, if Parliament or a state Assembly redrafts a law to allow promotion and propagation of a customary belief of majority of people, the court too reviews its order accordingly.

Q: Isn’t non-compliance with SC orders contempt of court? What is the way forward in such cases, for instance orders against customary practices of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, ‘dahi handi’ in Maharashtra and now Sabarimala temple in Kerala?

A: Yes, but only till the court relooks at the issue and passes a new order. A court verdict has to be accepted. One may say it is wrong, but it has to be followed. Till the new law, whether an Act or an ordinance, is reviewed, previous law must prevail.

Q: Another trend is to get a law passed to overturn an SC order. What about that?

A: In rule of law, judicial pronouncements must be respected. The legislature cannot overrule judgments by amending a law retrospectively. Parliament and assemblies are entitled to amend the law to remove defects, if any, in a judicial order but the new law cannot be implemented retrospectively as it would amount to nullifying the judgment.

The apex court has on several occasions made it clear that the legislature cannot set at naught the judgments which have been pronounced by amending the law to bring in new provisions which did not exist earlier. It may have the power to remove the basis or foundation of the judicial pronouncement, but cannot overturn or set aside the judgment, that too retrospectively by introducing a new provision.