news details |
|
|
| Spirit of the Constitution | | No substitute for working in harmony | |
by Somnath Chatterjee
THE idea of separation of powers and checks and balances are the two important pillars identified by our founding fathers for securing a reasonable degree of equilibrium in the polity. They visualised the need for harmonious co-existence and mutual respect among the three organs of democracy — the legislature, the executive and the judiciary — so that they could work in a smooth and coordinated manner. In this constitutional scheme, it is Parliament that enacts laws; the executive implements them; and the judiciary is the independent arbitrator interpreting them.
Over the years, Parliament has come to be recognised as the pivot of our political system. It has been instrumental, while respecting the sanctity of the Constitution, in ensuring that the fundamental law of the land kept pace with the changing needs of a growing society. As a collective body, Parliament has conveyed to the world that its voice will have to be reckoned with on matters concerning India’s interests as also on all major issues.
The efficiency, professionalism, unity of purpose and the commitment to the larger national causes that the parliamentary committees have been demonstrating all along have been of exceptionally high standard. In recent years, we have taken several initiatives to take Parliament closer to the people. The introduction of a full-fledged, 24-hour Lok Sabha Television Channel and the creation of various parliamentary forums to ensure more effective involvement of the people’s representatives in tasks of nation building are some of them.
However, these achievements cannot make up for the growing disillusionment about the efficacy of democratic institutions among the people. As H.K. Dua, a distinguished journalist, put it in his article, “Ensuring quality of democracy” (The Tribune 125 Years Special Supplement, September 24, 2005): “At tea-shops and dhabas across the country — and even in the drawing rooms of Shining India — the people with varying degrees of cynicism are beginning to question many an assumption underlying the prevailing political system.”
What is more worrying, according to him, is “the health of the institutions that are supposed to guide the affairs of the nation and take India forward towards a better future…Unfortunately, the performance of these institutions during the past five decades was not what it ought to have been. Parliament, after a great initial start, is becoming less vigilant and effective in defending the rights of the people or giving them a constructive lead; the administration by habit remains distant and callous towards most people whom it should serve; and the judiciary — the kachehri, which is the last hope of the people — is not able to dispense justice to all, despite an awakened Supreme Court that knows the problem but is unable to provide the cure. Most political parties have been found wanting…”
There are many undesirable tendencies that we need to address on priority. The perceived criminalisation of politics has vitiated our political system. What has brought the issue to the centrestage is the influence of money and muscle power in our electoral process and the resultant aberrations of politics. The people are justifiably becoming critical of the way our democratic institutions are functioning today. Debates and discussion, the hallmarks of democracy, are being overshadowed by disruption, confrontation and other non-democratic alternatives.
The editorial comment, “Pay and performance” (August 21, 2006), in The Tribune merits mention here: “The loss to the nation by the non-functioning of our parliamentarians runs into crores of rupees every year. And it is the taxpayer’s money which goes down the drain. The nation suffers for this irresponsible behaviour of the MPs, who perhaps think that they have been elected to cause uproar and disrupt the proceedings. The rule of ‘no work, no pay’ should be applicable in their case if it applies to other salaried people, though this will not be enough punishment to the people’s representatives”.
I have quoted these comments to convey the extent of the growing sense of dismay and criticism of the people about the way our institutions are functioning. We, therefore, have to ensure that the politics of confrontation and intolerance gives way to reconciliation and accommodation.
The provisions of the Constitution show the framers’ intention regarding the mutual relationship between Parliament and the Supreme Court. It does not contemplate any attempt of confrontation or non-cooperation. The supremacy of the law of Parliament in certain given respects, so far as the judiciary is concerned, establishes Parliament’s primacy. Dr Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar maintained in the Constituent Assembly that the doctrine of judicial independence was not to enable the judiciary to function as a kind of a “super legislature” or a “super executive”.
Clearly, each organ of the State should function in conformity with the basic spirit of the Constitution and in accordance with its provisions. This relationship has been clearly defined and demarcated in purpose, intent and areas of activities. The centrality and supremacy of the Constitution should prevail at all times so that the system works efficiently.
Sadly, instances of straying from the strict path of constitutional provisions, in the well-recognised scheme of separation of powers, have been increasing because of the liberal recourse to public interest litigation (PIL). This has naturally raised doubts and confusion among the people about the respective domains of the organs of the State. The PIL is an effective mechanism to sustain the faith of the poor and the disadvantaged people in the administration of justice and in the rule of law. If, however, resorting to novel methods of adjudication interferes with the discharge of its primary functions of dispensation of justice, we need to explore ways and means to address the problem.
If today we take pride in being the world’s largest democracy, with all its imperfections, it is Parliament that can take the maximum credit. There is definitely sufficient space in our system for all the institutions to co-exist and work together for the common weal.
Just as people look up to the courts with great expectation, hope and confidence, they also look up to Parliament and state legislatures, of which the executive is a part. For, under the Constitution, Parliament is the supreme legislative institution through which executive accountability is enforced.
As the Constitution is the supreme law, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must ensure that this balance is scrupulously adhered to. Parliament encompasses in its fold the people’s sovereign will. Thus, it is Parliament which enjoys primacy within the constitutional mandate. After all, the Constitution is the fountain-head of our parliamentary democracy.
There is no substitute for harmonious relationship among the different organs of the State. All constitutional provisions and laws should be implemented to serve the masses. What we need is a strong commitment and sensitivity to the people’s concerns to parliamentary democracy and to our constitutional framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
