Supreme Court on Requirement of Basic education for Contesting Elections.

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.