New Delhi: Those who criticise an action taken or a law made by a government cannot be deemed "anti-national" merely because of their disagreement, the chairman of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission said on Monday.

Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, a former chief justice of Patna High Court widely viewed as an outspoken judge, underscored the need to draw a distinction between an elected government and the nation.

"The government is not the nation - the nation is far above the government," Ansari said, delivering the 14th Distinguished Lecture at the Jamia Hamdard, a deemed university in New Delhi that offers graduate programmes in multiple disciplines.

"Governments may come and go, depending on which political party or parties have come to be elected - loyalty has to be to the nation and this cannot change with change in governments."

But, he said, people cannot say or do anything that threatens the security and integrity of the nation.

What the former chief justice said is an established principle but the reaffirmation assumes significance at a time attempts are being made to equate criticism of the government with maligning the country.

In an hour-long talk, Ansari - who had ruled that Bihar's prohibition law was unconstitutional, while conceding that the right to consume liquor was not a fundamental right - also touched on what he said was a "decline" in the functioning of the judiciary.

At the same time, he highlighted the achievements of the judiciary as the guardian of people's faith and remarked that there was "nothing to lose heart as such a decline has been witnessed in different phases of the Indian judiciary."

Ansari also said changes in the outlook and thought processes of the society could influence judicial decisions or making of laws consistent with those changes.

He cited an example saying that at one point of time, the integrity of doctors had never been questioned in society and the word of medical practitioners was viewed as sacrosanct by judges.

However, he cited a ruling of the Supreme Court to point out that a doctor's evidence could not always be treated as the touchstone for testing the veracity of the evidence of an eyewitness.

As a consequence, when there is a conflict between an eyewitness's account of an occurrence and the medical evidence, the court could still convict the accused on the basis of an eyewitness's evidence if it has reasons to believe that the eyewitness is telling the truth, provided the judge assigns convincing reasons for such a conclusion.

Citing a Supreme Court ruling of 1973, referred to as the Kesavananda Bharti case, Ansari said the "basic structure" of India's Constitution could not be changed through amendments.

He, however, pointed out that what had been enumerated in that case as the basic structure was not exhaustive but merely illustrative in as much as "secularism" and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been, later on, held to be parts of the basic structure of the Constitution. Articles 226 and 227 define the powers of high courts.

However, to a query from his audience, Ansari said, the Constitution may, in the future, be "rewritten" through a fresh Constituent Assembly if the nation as a whole so decides.

Ansari, in his lecture, also expressed concerns about the functioning of the Supreme Court, citing its recent actions.

Without referring to any particular judgment, Ansari said the Supreme Court decided in a case to lean in favour of statements of some judges though judges could not always be regarded as angels.

He referred to a case where a sessions judge was tried in his own court on the charge of having murdered his wife and daughters and trying to destroy evidence, was found guilty, sentenced to death and eventually hanged.

"Judges need not be angels - they are also human beings," Ansari said.

Ansari echoed Justice Ranjan Gogoi, tipped to be the next Chief Justice of India, who had last week said: "We need independent journalists and noisy judges".

India, Ansari said, needs independent journalists and judges who dare to raise their voice if the functioning of the judiciary is not in tune with the constitutional mandate.