Monday, October 23, 2006

By Gyan Pathak

The supremacy of the Parliament to legislate is under attack, and the supremacy of the Supreme Court is questioned on the ground of usurpation of the rights of the Executive and Legislature. This situation has come, and it was bound to surface when all the three constitutional bodies have been increasingly misused by unscrupulous elements from inside and outside these institutions. The crux of the matter is that all the three are suffering degradation.

The question is how to prevent their degradation as independent identities as well as interference of any of them into functioning of the other? The only answer could be their functioning on their own in the manner unquestionable. Genuine mistakes are always subject to corrections, and if they are pointed out a noble person in the helm of affair may always be found ready to correct them. However, when the mistakes are deliberately done, they are defended tooth and nail.

As for the people, we are born free. Nobody is bound to follow the illegal or immoral decisions of any of them. It is here, we raise our fingers on all the three institutions. Whenever, people find the decisions or judgments disgusting they simply don't follow. We are then treated lawless by the custodians of the three institutions. We love the three institutions but hate the erroneous custodians. We want to change the custodians, and in return such custodians try us to drag into “contempt” proceedings.

It is the question of supremacy of the people in a democracy which has been degraded by the incumbents of the three institutions.

We can raise fingers on the custodians of the present Legislature of our country on various counts. We can even support the Supreme Court's comment on their functioning when it said, “You announce the policy without full data. You play the game and frame the rules later. You are saying that the quota for SC/ST and OBC are interchangeable. On what basis you are saying this? Further, you have not said anything about the `creamy layer'.'

It is correct that our present custodians of the parliament have been found doing wrong things, legally and morally. There is a worst example of shielding the culprits by them through enacting a law in regard to hold posts of profit, despite the presidential caution for such a 'wisdom'. Only one member of parliament was punished by the Election Commission, and for others the whole Legislature and Executive along with the EC were hand in glove.

There is no doubt that the Parliament is supreme in the matter of legislating a law. However, it cannot hold its supremacy if it legislates “wrongful” legislations without being able to justify them. Our custodians play the game, make the rules, and change them when they are caught. They must keep in mind that they have some fundamental duties towards the citizen of this country. They cannot go harping on their rights to legislate without fulfilling their duties.

It is a known fact that the custodians of our legislature try to do something to escape judicial scrutiny. The latest example is the suggestion to put the reservation policy in the ninth schedule of the Constitution so that it goes out of the purview of the Judiciary. There is another proposal to create a 'committed judiciary' through an instrument of taking over the power to appoint a judge in the Supreme and High Courts, which has been done for a decade or so by a collegium of judges. The Executive's intention of usurpation of the powers of judiciary is revealed by this proposal.

If the custodians of our Legislature and Executive are bent upon doing “wrongful” things, who is going to protect their supremacy? They are bound to lose their supremacy in such cases.

The Supreme Court is being unfairly criticised by our leader in this regard. Supreme Court is also bound by law, and is supposed to check our custodians of the Legislature and the Executive from doing injustice to the people of this country. It does not amount to usurpation of the functioning of the Legislature or the Executive.

As for the Supreme Court or Judiciary, its structure is different. If a judge or a bench makes mistakes in its judgement, there is always a scope of revision petition in higher benches. Judiciary itself knows that a judgement may be erroneous, and that is why higher courts have been established to review all the judgments. If our politicians and executive officers feel that there was a mistake in the decision of a court, they can approach for appeals or revisions rather than giving political statements in the public. It is not only denigrating the judicial system of our country but also misleading the public for political ends.

Even the Supreme Court has said that its decisions are subject to public criticism. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in criticizing a judgement. However, an interested party like officers or parliamentarians should voice their criticism only before the court concerned, and should not try to put pressures for the sake of impartial judgment.
There is only one way left with the people. They suffer most because of the errors of our legislature. The errors crop up due to the mind-set of our leaders. You elect better mind-set, and you are safer. Leaders not only run the Legislature but also the Executive. And Executive plays a dominant role in appointment of judges. If the Gangotri (the place of origin of the Ganges) is polluted who can save the Ganges! A bad workman quarrels with his tools. They do not see faults in themselves. They are in fact trying to save their skins and play high handedness in the name of saving the institutions like Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. #