Comment posted in my blog:
As a law student who has studied constitutional law, I must say that I am quite disappointed in Shanmugam. Nowhere does the Constitution state that the President cannot speak up on issues of national concern.
In fact, the Constitution grants all citizens the freedom of speech (Article 14). It would be absurd if a citizen could lose his freedom of speech simply by becoming the President. The freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty that is constitutionally entrenched, and can only be curtailed by clear words in the Constitution.
Of course, nothing in law is totally clear-cut. One could possibly argue that from the President's scope of duties and powers, one could infer a rule that the President is barred from speaking up against the Government. But this would be a very difficult argument to make, given that it requires restricting an explicit fundamental liberty in favour of an inchoate, unwritten rule. Shanmugam is certainly not justified in saying with such total confidence that the President will be violating the Constitution if he does speak up.
In fact, the Constitution grants all citizens the freedom of speech (Article 14). It would be absurd if a citizen could lose his freedom of speech simply by becoming the President. The freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty that is constitutionally entrenched, and can only be curtailed by clear words in the Constitution.
Of course, nothing in law is totally clear-cut. One could possibly argue that from the President's scope of duties and powers, one could infer a rule that the President is barred from speaking up against the Government. But this would be a very difficult argument to make, given that it requires restricting an explicit fundamental liberty in favour of an inchoate, unwritten rule. Shanmugam is certainly not justified in saying with such total confidence that the President will be violating the Constitution if he does speak up.
