How CJI DY Chandrachud responded when Kapil Sibal flagged former CJI Ranjan Gogoi's comment on basic structure

Comments made in the Rajya Sabha by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who expressed reservations yesterday about the correctness of the basic structure doctrine, found mention in Supreme Court today. .The subject was alluded to by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud during the Constitution bench hearing of the Article 370 case. ."As it is, now one of your esteemed colleagues (Gogoi) have said that the basic structure theory is also doubtful..," Sibal remarked. CJI Chandrachud responded by stating that opinions of retired judges are not binding diktats."If you refer to a colleague, you have to refer to a sitting colleague. Once they cease to be judges, they are opinions, not binding diktats," Chief Justice Chandrachud responded. "I am surprised.. of course, it is not binding," Sibal said, in turn. "Parliament does not discuss what happens in court and court does not do so.. everyone has a freedom of speech and expression," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta chimed in..Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) and nominated Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, Ranjan Gogoi had expressed his reservations with the basic structure doctrine yesterday while supporting the passage of the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023..Addressing concerns that the bill violates the basic structure of the Constitution, Gogoi referred to a book by former Solicitor General of India (SGI) TR Andhyarujina on the Kesavananda Bharati case to assert that the doctrine of basic structure has a very debatable jurisprudential basis."Does it violate the basic features of the Constitution? There is a book by Mr (TR) Andhyarujina on the Kesavananda Bharati case. Having read the book, my view is that the doctrine of basic structure of the Indian Constitution has a very debatable jurisprudential basis," Justice Gogoi said.Justice Gogoi ended his maiden speech in parliament by underlining that Article 239AA was not under challenge before the Supreme Court. Therefore, he contended that the bill was perfectly, legitimately valid..The hearing in the Article 370 case is ongoing before a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The case involves a batch of petitions challenging the Central government's decision to delete Article 370 of the Constitution, thereby withdrawing the special status earlier accorded to Jammu and Kashmir. One of the arguments by the petitioners in the case is that the abrogation violates federalism, which is considered to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.