Rajasthan political drama

The kind of theoretic piece of political drama for the last about two weeks in the State of Rajasthan reminds me what Sir Winston Churchill the then Prime Minister of Britain on the eve of Indian independence in 1947 said. The same reads thus: –

“Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed in India.”

Although I utterly disagree with the vilified version (supra) of Churchill for the reason it was said at the time when the Britishers were parting with the power. It is known globally that parting of power is always painful.

Nobody on this planet wants to part with the power, notwithstanding, the power possessed by the individual or group is legal or illegal. The present scenario in which the political parties, who have bid adieu to their respective manifestos and constitutional assignments, are acting in a self-centered mode.

To grab the power as much as one can and to wield it for a long time, the person(s) are doing everything possible at their command to achieve their nefarious goal(s).

The invocation of the law of sedition (Section 124-A under Indian Penal Code, 1860) against the sitting Deputy Chief Minister of the State, namely, Sachin Pilot is a classic example of the misuse of law.

Many countries most surprisingly the country of origin, namely, United Kingdom has repealed this pernicious piece of legislation owing to its frequent misuse.

Surprisingly the same is still prevalent in independent India to stifle the dissent. Politicians have completely forgotten that they were elected by the electoral based on their manifesto, that if they will come to power, they will serve the society at large. The said commitment is sadly and miserably missing and less said would be better.

The political parties in their battle for power have unnecessarily dragged Constitutional Courts to criticism. The Constitutional Courts are also being despised dehors the truth. It is a very sad state of affair that the constitutional credibility of our otherwise envious systems of the dispensation of justice is being brought to indelible disrepute.

It appears that after the lapse of about seventy-three years of independence, the hunger of politicians is growing for power with untold proportion. This indeed is bolstering the decisively despicable words of Mr. Churchill.

I fully appreciate and admire the intellectual courage displayed by Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament. He at the Edinburgh University right before the crowd dominated by English inhabitants said in loud and clear words that  Churchill who is adorned by the Britishers for his extraordinary intellect is sadly known to be the most unethical and offensively inhuman qua the inhabitants of British-India.

The famine of the West Bengal (1943-1944) led to the death of millions and millions. Indian people died actually not from the natural calamities, but the calamity generated and garnered by Churchill as the scarcity of food grain was the brainchild of Churchill.

Tharoor was absolutely right in demanding that the Britishers owe reparation to the Indians. Some of the members of the audience were shell-shocked and seen so sad that what the ancestry of Britishers has done to the people of British-India. Consequently, they were wiping their tears.

It is true that the tenth schedule of the Constitution of India gives right to the Speaker of the Legislative House to act independently and without any judicial interference.

The constitutional validity of the schedule tenth of the Constitution of India was under challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & ors, 1992 supplement (2) SCC 651. The Constitution Bench comprising of five judges by majority of 3:2 held that “schedule tenth does not suffer from the vice of any kind of constitutional invalidity.”

Every law is enacted by the legislature to contain the mischief. Be it the Central legislation or State legislation.

The frequent perverted political defections were considered to be matter of National concern and for this reason, only this enactment of tenth schedule (Atricle 102(2) and 191(2)) under the caption PROVISIONS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION ON GROUND OF DEFECTION was enacted by way of Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 to curb the malaise of defection pursuant to the report of the committee on defections dated January 7, 1969.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which was adopted as the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 (supra) says:

“The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the president to Parliament that the government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above assurance.”

With the passage of time, where there is a progressive deterioration in every walk of life, this salutary enactment too has failed considerably if not completely. Under the garb of this enactment, the Speaker who always happens to be the member of the ruling party with few exceptions, willy-nilly safeguard the ruling party with invisible act(s).

The office is undisputedly high and has considerable aura commensurate to the constitutional oath. The speaker often fails awfully with notable exceptions and acts as an umpire, it worries the society at large.

The most disturbing and devastating fight akin to Kilkenny cats between Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot is hardly appreciable and requires introspection by none others than the party itself.

It is true legally that the Speaker has the power to issue the notice and as being vehemently argued by the legal brains before the High Court & Supreme Court. Both sides are arguing that power has been misused/not misused.

The Congress party is asserting that the Courts have been excluded from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32, 226, and 136 of the Constitution of India. It is nomoreres-Integra that the Speaker can issue the notice but when the question comes whether the notice can be issued at the instance of the dominating group within the party to muzzle the voice of dissent.

Agree to disagree is the fundamental need of a democratic party. The great French Philosopher, Voltaire once said: “I disagree with what you have to say, Sir, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it“. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination or perception that the action of the Speaker, herein, the notice would not be subject to judicial scrutiny by the Constitutional Courts.

The author of the majority judgment (supra), namely, Mr. M. N. Venkatachaliah who is known for his uprightness and who brooks no-nonsense is also known in the history of Indian judicial system for his extraordinary judicial skill and ability to hold equally the scales of justice under all circumstance.

Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju in one of his recent article under caption “Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam – A Tribute”  referred that “I regard as the father figure of the Indian Judiciary.” This in all sum and reality is a real tribute to his illustrious work.

The same judge while examining the abuse of the powers of Police of the arrest; interpreted the same in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP and others, (1994) 4 SCC 260 and said in clear words that “no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another.”

In our largest democracy, every action of person(s)in power must be subject to judicial scrutiny. Complete immunity has not been granted by the Legislature to anyone, let alone the speaker. The oft-quoted quote in the legal world that is “Howsoever high you may be, the law is above you”.

It is high time that the law of defection (supra) perceived by the Legislature at that time of enactment has proved ineffective for a variety of reasons. The government of the day being bestowed with the absolute majority should leave no effort to grab the opportunity and the anti- defection law be made more stringent.

Thus menace of defection is to be cribbed and caged, the defectors should not only be disqualified under the existent law for a limited period, rather defector(s) be disqualified for the rest of the life by way of new enactment. The ill- gotten money received out of the defection be also confiscated.

The largest democracy of India then only flourishes with the idea of Democratic India perceived by our forefathers who relentlessly fought for independence.