dailyO
Politics

7 times political challenges trumped the Supreme Court

Advertisement
Kamal Mitra Chenoy
Kamal Mitra ChenoyApr 22, 2017 | 22:29

7 times political challenges trumped the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court along with Parliament has long been considered the bulwark of Indian democracy. But questions are being asked by those committed to secular democracy if there haven't been legal deviations that have weakened democracy.

To cite just a few:

1) In the run up to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Supreme Court in its order of November 29, 1992, despite the warning of the Muslims’ counsel OP Sharma that like in the past, the karsevaks might amass in huge numbers, causing the police to avoid firing to stop attacking the disputed mosque, the Supreme Court ordered the UP government to treat the kar sevaks as state guests. The "state guests" thus had a clear chance to destroy the mosque, and build a temporary structure. The paramilitary forces sent by the Centre had no orders to fire on the vandals.

Advertisement

2) Thereafter, the Supreme Court recognised the structure as an interim Ram Mandir. On the basis of which law? In April 1950, the district commissioner of Ayodhya/Faizabad confirmed that the Babri Masjid was never a temple of Ram Chandraji. He also confirmed that the Ram Lalla idol had illegally been placed in the Babri Masjid. Yet, despite this clear evidence, the apex court gave de facto rights to the "Ram Mandir" to the Sangh Parivar and its supporters. In sum, this amounted to rewarding the criminals.

3) A few weeks ago, CJI JS Kehar in response to an unscheduled request by Dr Subramaniam Swamy, suggested an out-of-court settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. But Dr Swamy was not an original party to that dispute. He had no locus standi. In any case, the Muslim plaintiffs were not in court as they had no intimation. The court should have been aware of the facts, before making its observations on such a sensitive issue.

4) A number of violations have taken place, including the RBI Act, 1934, Rule 24(2) which stated that "the central government may, on the recommendation of the Central Board, direct the non-issue or the discontinuance of issue of bank notes of such denominational values as it may satisfy in this behalf." But the Central Board did not meet before the demonetisation on November 8, 2016. So it did not empower the RBI to demonetise the ₹1,000 and ₹500 currency notes.

Advertisement

babri_042217102446.jpg
In April 1950, the district commissioner of Ayodhya/Faizabad confirmed that the Babri Masjid was never a temple of Ram Chandraji. He also confirmed that the Ram Lalla idol had illegally been placed in the Babri Masjid. Photo: India Today

5) Rule 9 of the RBI Act states: "(1) A Local Board shall be constituted for each of the four areas specified in Schedule I and shall consist of five members to be appointed by the central government to represent, as far as possible, the interests of co-operative and indigenous banks." These local banks were not empowered post-demonetisation.

The Attorney General only questioned the capability of these banks, as not being able to spot counterfeit currency, post facto in the apex court. But there is a significant amount of counterfeit currency found, some found with terrorists. In any case, the Union government could have provided the necessary means to expose counterfeit currency to the local banks.

6) Article 300A states categorically that, "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." But the ₹1,000 and ₹500 currency notes promise under the signature of the Governor of the RBI - "I promise to pay the bearer the sum of five hundred rupees" – and are by law property which was demonetised without authority of law. In other words this was a violation of the Constitution.

Advertisement

7) Even now there is no official confirmation about what percentage of the 86 per cent demonetisation has been compensated for. What is the current percentage of currency compared to the value of currency prior to demonetisation? PM Narendra Modi speaks a lot but is silent on controversial issues, like the extent of remonetisation. Worse, the government is fiddling with official statistics and data to present a rosier picture of the economy.

Some senior advocates moved a PIL on these and other grounds questioning the process of demonetisation. The PIL was not admitted by the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court has a huge backlog. Nonetheless, these are issues that required a decision at the highest level.

In these times when institutions are in crisis, the apex court must rise to the occasion. Opportunist politics can only be met with the majesty of law, when the secular forces are scattered.

Last updated: April 22, 2017 | 22:29
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy