Year
2015 is coming to an end, and we have seen many of new trends and developments
in political thought. All were threadbare debated; propagated by supporters and
opposed by others.
But
my article is about some of decisions of Supreme Court, which gave affirmation
to these thought and processes. I understand that verdict of SC is law of land
and cannot be challenged but can be requested for review only.
One
of the decisions that puzzled me is upholding the rule by Haryana Government
that, for contesting Panchayat election, candidate must have some education
standard. (Similar law has been passed by Rajsthan Govt also). And by coincidence
or otherwise both states are ruled by BJP. We are not privy to thinking process
or logic that went in to upholding validity of such laws. Probably it is
intention of judges that representative should be educated to be effective. (It
may that they have differentiated between right to vote and right to contest.)
But
does SC should go by intention or by constitution? Is it not onslaught on fundamental
principal of constitution- namely universal franchise and equality of all
before law? This is so because, while framing the constitution itself, such criteria
were discussed and rejected. While everyone
is giving lip service to inclusiveness in society, this measure advances
exclusivity. This is against last generation which may not be educated, but may
have experience and wisdom to lead society. This is also against SC/ST, OBC and
woman whose general education standard is generally low compared to general
public. These weaker groups had started participation in democratic process due
to affirmative action’s/ protection under available under constitution.
This
stand of SC seems at odd with its stand on AADHAR. Apart from issue of privacy,
SC is not allowing AADHAR compulsory because it has observed that AADHAR card
has not been issued to all, and in absence of card no one should be denied
benefits available from government. Same is case with education, whole
population is not educated (may not be fault of person), still SC is depriving
them of basic/ fundamental right – participation in democratic process.
Above
stand is at odd with one of the other ruling by SC. This time it is about law
of “Compulsory Voting” in election made by Gujrat state (coincidence –this is
also a BJP ruled state), which is struck down by SC on the ground that, such valediction
will make voting as “Duty” while as per constitution it is “Right” and has been
left for voter’s discretion to use it or not. Such discriminatory ruling is
coming from SC now very often. SC has uphold the law of Kerala, where in wine
is allowed in 5 star hotels but not otherwise.
One
more disturbing thing about SC rulings (not limited to these cases) is -at one point
of time it binds itself with existing constitution and says nothing can be done
as it is law of land and parliament/ assembly should make appropriate law if
things need to be changed ( Latest case- position of SC, not staying release of
Juvenile convict, who had completed term as per law). At other point of time it
provocatively makes law or struck down law made by parliament (Observe fate of NJAC
law).
How
this debate will turn in 2016?. Will it turn debate on wisdom of having educated
(having some certificate) representative or experienced representative.Will it turn local level law against rules at National level( Reservation for Woman at local level but not at state/centre level) and so on. But
what if this debate comes out of court room and academic arena, to political
field.
Will
such move by BJP ruled state and /or support by BJP will benefit it or harm it.
Will Congress and others will blame it for advocating exclusivity ( and rule by
Brahmans) and take advantage being taken by propagating Modi govt as “Suit Boot
Ki Sarkar”. We will see only in 2016, but one thing certain BJP needs to move
very cautiously.
