Rule of Law and The Legislature versus Judiciary in India.

Unfortunately for all of us, we have to re-learn all this from a BAD SITUATION and a BAD CASE.

That is the morale from all this, our bad time.

Through The Constituent Assemblyof the 1940s, we declared ourselves, "WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA" and A SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLC.

One of the fundamental pillars of DEMOCRACY is, "RULE OF LAW", MEANING WE ARE GOVERNED BY RULES RATHER THAN MEN IN POWER. The fundamental premise of Rule of Law is that NO PERSON SHALL BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE.

The case of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, The current Speaker of Lok Sabha is that his action of expelling certain Parliamentary Members is contested by the aggrieved persons in Courts of Law. Therefore, the verdict in the case cannot be declared by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee in it’s absolutism.

Even in the case of Justice Ramaswamy, the other members of the court gave the verdict.

However, the BEAUTY of Democracy is that it also provides for a reasonable classification of persons in terms of Article 14 of our Constitution, i.e.., the equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

Hence, in dealing with Mr. Somnath Chettarjee, there can be a provision to treat him as a person of his own class.

The confrontation being raised by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee time and again is unwarranted which may result in "the law taking it’s own course". Unfortunately, Mr. Somnath Chattarjee is also a Constitutional Lawyer and lat there be no ego playing it’s role in the name of some thing else rather than pure reasoning and logic.

DEMOCRACY is where, even a Supreme Court Chief Justice can be contested by a layman and where a layman can question any authority by a proper procedure ( Just, fair and Reasonable Procedure ).

ELSE, IT IS A MYTH And therefore can be called an ELITE DEMOCRACY.

From the days of Dicy ( more that 300 years ago ), many learned men have put faith in the Justice System for the ultimate disposal of CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

In the Constitutional System of India, even though Article 103 bestows Jurisdiction upon Parliament, it is not absolute. The PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUION is more important, which says, "WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA" and "DEMOCRACY". ALREADY, THE TERM "SOCIALISTIC", is thoroughly watered down over the last 20 years of ECONOMIC REFORMS BY ALL CONCERNED IN THE RULING ELITE INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY.

DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ALONE. THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE ONLY PART OF THE NATION-STATE AND THEY CANNOT TREAT THEMSELVES TO BE A COUNTRY WITHIN A COUNTRY.

Democracy ultimately means reasoning and civilization has more power than brute force. REASONING dictates that right or wrong is judged only upon analyzing "EVIDENCE" and evidence is tested best only in a COURT ROOM .

It is also that when men eschewed and laid down arms for protecting their just interests and opted for a procedural living, it is recognized that the brain is more powerful than brute force. Otherwise, we may require yet another PARASURAMA to restore order in SOCIETY.

For the ordinary Citizen these days, his rights are more important for an advancement of his life than his insignificant "VOTE" BECAUSE THE RIGHTS ENSURE AT LEAST A REASONABLE LIVING WHEREAS THE VOTES HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE A MERE "GAMBLING EXERCISE" WITH HIS FATE.

MAY BE, THERE WILL BE A BETTER VERDICT IN FUTURE.

IN THIS CASE, IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE COURT TO UPHOLD THE PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND THE PENAL LAW, BY OUR FORE FATHERS; IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE NOT CHALLENGED as ultra vires. The "law taking it’s own course" naturally flow out of such an exercise.

Ultimately, no body and nothing is permanent in this world and only the traditional concept od "DHARMA" alone governs this land.

IN MY OTHER OPINION, MAY BE Mrs. INDIRA GANDHI WAS A BETTER SOCIALIST THAN ALL THESE PRESENT DAY REFORMISTS, COMMUNISTS, MARXISTS AND MAOISTS OR MAY BE, WE REQUIRE YET ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST URGENTLY TO SET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER IN ALL RESPECTS. THAT IS AT LEAST MY SUSPECION NAGGING OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS AND JUST YESTERDAY, IF YOU READ OUT THE OPINION OF THE UNITED NATIONS PUBLIC ENTERPRISES PRIVATIZATION ADVISOR ( AT THE NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY ), YOU REALISE THAT AFTERALL MY SUSPECIONS HAVE A FIRM BASE. AT LEAST, IT HAS SHOWN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IS DEEPLY EFFECTED BY THESE REFORMS AMOUNTING EVEN NEAR TO EXTINCTION OF THIS VITAL SECTOR ( NECESSARY UNTIL AN ALTERNATIVE IS PROVEN AT LEAST AT A PILOT LEVEL ).