Roadside meetings
by
AJ Philip |
Kerala High Court judgment is controversial
THERE are clearly defined roles for the executive, the judiciary and the legislature under India’s constitutional scheme of things. Yet, there have been a few occasions when they seemed to be on a collision path. One such has been caused by a controversial judgment of the Kerala High Court delivered on June 23.
The court virtually banned the holding of roadside meetings when it asked the authorities concerned not to give permission for such functions. What occasioned the judgment of far-reaching significance was a petition against allowing public meetings on the road in front of the Aluva railway station, one of the busiest in the state.
While conceding the petitioner’s demand, which received support from elite sections of society, the court overlooked certain procedural requirements. It was so convinced by the petitioner’s argument that such meetings obstructed the movement of pedestrians and vehicles on the road in question that the court thought of extending the benefit of the ban to the users of all roads in the state.
In doing so, the court did not even think of the necessity to seek the state government’s response to the petition before pronouncing its verdict. Small wonder that it became a partisan judgment and it has been increasingly criticised by politicians and the vernacular media. While intemperate language has been used by a politician belonging to the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist) against the judges, the judgment has been receiving more flak than praise with each passing day.
This is because there is a growing realisation that the court did not take into account the democratic traditions of the country and the citizens’ right to express dissent, a sine qua non of democracy. It was by using the forum of roadsides that political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru articulated their opposition to the British rule and built a strong movement for freedom that culminated in India’s Independence on August 15, 1947.
In fact, public meetings are as old as Indian democracy. In the western world, too, thinkers and philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Rousseau and Aristotle are believed to have used street corners and other public forums to mould public opinions that eventually resulted in the establishment of the democratic system, of which judiciary is an important component.
Article 19 of the Constitution grants citizens the right to express their opinion and hold public meetings for the same. Of course, the Article also grants the government the freedom to exercise control on such a right in specific situations. Alas, the High Court’s verdict is not in conformity with any of the specific conditions the Constitution prescribes to impose restrictions on the citizen’s right to hold public meetings. Thus the verdict is in contravention of the citizen’s right to hold public meetings guaranteed by the Constitution.
It is for this very reason that both the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) have been critical of the judgment, though the former is more vocal and vehement than the latter.
They feel that the civic body elections likely to be held later this year would become difficult if candidates are not allowed to hold roadside meetings. Elections to the State Assembly are also due early next year. The court’s suggestion that such meetings should be held in places far away from public roads and streets is not practical. The judgment is, therefore, tantamount to striking at the roots of political activity in the state.
It is not the first time that the Kerala High Court has taken the lead in such matters. It was the first to pronounce a ban on “bandhs”, a phenomenon in which political parties bring life to a standstill to protest against the policies of the government. Alas, political parties have been circumventing the ban by calling “bandhs” by different names like “hartal” and “general strike”.
A silver line in the otherwise dark horizon has been the recent statement of the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Jasti Chelameswar, that he was distressed over the expression of opinion about courts in public forums. “It is a different matter who is right and who is wrong. But the responses to the verdict are not a healthy trend. They point to the fact that democratic institutions are coming under increasing strain,” he is reported to have said.
The Chief Justice was pointing to a convention whereby court verdicts are seldom criticised in public, though they are challenged in the higher courts. Of course, the court has the right to take suo motu action against those who cause contempt of court but in this case it has so far refrained from doing so. Needless to say, such an action would open the floodgates of contempt of court proceedings against a whole lot of people, which is not in public interest.
Given the infirmities in the judgment, there is a case for its appropriate review by either a larger bench of the High Court itself or by the Supreme Court. There have been umpteen instances in which courts, including the highest court of the land, have reviewed their own verdicts.
After all, it is not political meetings alone that have come under restrictions. Hindus, Muslims and Christians use public roads not only to preach their religions but also to hold religious processions which at times obstruct movement of vehicles and pedestrians and are, therefore, in contravention of the High Court ruling. A ban on such processions is almost unthinkable, given the backlash it can cause.
In this whole controversy, what is forgotten is that every arm of the state has its limits and the courts, too, have to function within certain parameters. Once they realise this, there would be harmony in their functioning. The earlier the controversy is resolved, the better it will be for every democratic institution in the state, nay the country.
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for AJ Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
