The biggest mistake of the LDF government was that Kerala minister Saji Cherian had to resign over his remarks on the Constitution. Mr Cherian said that the Constitution was “British-made and anti-working class”. He said that the writers of the Constitution put some words like “secularism” and “democracy” here and there, but this did not take away from the fact that the Constitution is “a tool to exploit the common man”. Is there any evidence that Mr. Cherian has reneged on his oath as an MLA and a minister?
amending the constitution
Indian Constitution is fundamentally liberal. There is no condition that makes contempt of the Constitution a serious offence. In fact, Article 19(1)(1) guarantees the freedom of expression with which one can criticize the working of the Constitution. Criticism on Mr. Cherian’s remark that the British dictated the Constitution does not contain water. The Constituent Assembly that drafted the Constitution borrowed heavily from the Government of India Act, 1935, which was introduced and used by the British in this country for more than 12 years. The Constitution is not a holy book, but a biological document. The word ‘secular’ was not found in the original text, but was inserted under the 42nd Amendment.
Several amendments have been made in the Constitution to remove the bias in the judgments of the High Courts. When Indira Gandhi, as prime minister, announced that 14 banks would be nationalised, the move was challenged in court by the affected banks. The Supreme Court struck down the act as invalid. Mrs. Gandhi’s bill to abolish the privy purse was passed in the Lok Sabha, but was defeated in the Rajya Sabha. President VV Giri then withdrew the recognition of all rulers under Article 366(22), which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. These court decisions prompted Parliament to introduce the 24th and 25th Amendments to the Constitution. Speaking in support of the amendments, several Members of Parliament criticized the judiciary and expressed dismay at the shortcomings found in the Constitution. P. Ramamurthy of the CPI(M) described the Constitution as representative of the bourgeois landlord state. In the light of these developments, the Central Committee of the Marxist Party discussed the proposal for substantial amendments to the Constitution. Just because party workers contest elections, it does not mean that they are satisfied with the working of the Constitution. They are entitled to criticize the Constitution and work for change according to their principle of social justice.
In 1967, when EMS Namboodiripad, or EMS, said that the judiciary could not rise above the economic system and was always subordinate to it, a case of contempt was filed against him and he was punished by the Kerala High Court. The Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction, held that EMS did not have a complete understanding of Marxism. It states that nowhere in Marxism is there any mention of the judiciary being subordinate to the economic system. The Marxist party then fully supported the EMS. Today, however, this has left Mr Cherian, who expressed similar sentiments, high and dry.
There are instances of people being taken to court for constitutional violations. For example, in 1986, opposing the imposition of Hindi, K. Anbazhagan and nine other DMK MLAs burnt Part XVII of the Constitution. A case was filed for his removal from the legislature party. The Madras High Court accepted the petition and he was disqualified from the legislature. The allegations against Mr. Cherian come nowhere near it. If his speech was not tasteful, his party members could give him a piece of advice and ask the agitating opposition activists to try their luck with the judiciary.
change in constitution
It is not that the Constitution was never questioned. After the Babri Masjid demolition, the Sangh Parivar launched a campaign saying that all matters could not be decided by the courts and demanded a change in the Constitution. In 2000, the NDA government appointed retired Chief Justice MN Venkatachaliah to head a committee to review the working of the Constitution. The present NDA government has amended the constitution to implement its own agenda. It has damaged the integrity of India by abrogating Article 35A and 370. Deviating from the constitutional norm of providing affirmative justice to the socially and educationally backward classes, it introduced the 103rd Amendment to provide for reservation for the economically poorer classes. No one demanded that the BJP leadership resign for these works; Instead, the aggrieved persons took the issues to court. Similarly, if Mr. Cherian’s statement was objectionable, the agitating persons should have gone to court. His speech was not against the Marxist theory on the character of the state and its functioning constitution. His removal from the cabinet sends a message that the party has doubts about the Marxist understanding of the Constitution.
Justice K Chandru is a former judge of the Madras High Court