Defense of Democracy in India

In January 2014, while addressing a Vijay Sankalp rally in Goa, Narendra Modi called on the audience to vote for a “Congress-mukt Bharat”. He said, “Whether it is dynasty politics, nepotism, corruption, communalism, division in society or poverty, I mean Congress-mukt Bharat to get rid of all these.” Describing the BJP’s commitment to transform India’s future, he said, “We need efforts to integrate the nation, not divide it.” The incidents that have unfolded over the years, including the toppling of governments and selective arrests of opposition leaders in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, show that we may be heading towards an opposition-free India.

parliamentary democracy

The Indian Constitution adopted the parliamentary system and not the presidential system. BR Ambedkar provided the rationale for this: “A democratic executive must satisfy two conditions – (1) it must be a stable executive and (2) it must be a responsible executive. Unfortunately till now it has been possible to develop such a system.” In England, where the parliamentary system prevails, the assessment of the responsibility of the executive is both daily and periodic. Daily evaluation of questions, motions, no-confidence motions, adjournment motions by Members of Parliament. and debates on speeches. Periodic assessment is done by voters at election time … a daily assessment of responsibility that is not available under the US system, making it far more effective and . .. is felt to be far more necessary in India. The draft constitution recommending the parliamentary system… has given priority to more responsibility rather than more stability.”

Democracy is the basic feature of the constitution. Parliamentary democracy does not envisage a situation where a one-party government becomes permanent. The presence of a vigilant opposition is essential not only for a vibrant democracy but also for its survival. When the opposition criticizes the government or agitates to arouse public opinion against the misdeeds of a party, it is performing the duty assigned by the Constitution. Without an effective opposition, democracy would become sluggish and the legislature would become submissive. The public will then think that the legislature is a sham and is unable to perform its functions and will lose interest in the functioning of the parliament.

Before and after independence, the Congress was determined to keep other parties out. For a long time the opposition was considered unnecessary and somewhat cumbersome. This had a detrimental effect on the functioning of our democracy. The evils that Mr Modi talked about in Goa were the result of that. Nevertheless, Mr. Modi and the BJP today want to follow the same path. Recently, Home Minister Amit Shah publicly declared that the next 30-40 years will be the BJP era. Encouraging defection from the parties in power in the states will sound the death knell for democracy. The Tenth Schedule has failed to fulfill its purpose. Supreme Court, in Kihoto Holohan vs Zachilu (1992), upholding the 52nd Amendment, through which the Tenth Schedule was introduced, summarized the arguments in favor and against it in these words: “On the one hand the real and imminent to the fabric of Indian democracy Some levels of political behavior are manifested by their complete and utter disregard for clearly recognized political justification and morality… On the other hand, there are some side-effects that affected and hurt even honest dissidents and conscientious objectors In upholding the law, the court said: “But a political party operates on the strength of shared beliefs … policies, will not only embarrass its public image and popularity, but also undermine the public’s confidence in it which … is the source of its sustenance – no, in fact, it exists.”

Loyalty to the party is essential. The whip system is part of the established machinery of political organization in the House and does not in any way infringe on the rights or privileges of any member. This is why some political thinkers have recognized the ‘principle of recollection’ as an additional tool, so that a member whose personal behavior falls below the standards expected of his constituents, goes back and seeks their approval. This power is particularly appropriate when a member shows loyalty to his party but refuses to resign his seat and contest an immediate by-election. The anti-defection law was considered a justification for the recall power. In the absence of resignation and re-election immediately after the violation of the whip or to show allegiance to the party to which the label was elected, the floor test is meaningless. It only attempts to legalize what is otherwise illegal, unconstitutional and immoral.

A swarm of members of the governing legislature party in a state being transported from one destination to another in chartered planes, put up in five-star hotels, and in states run by the party in power at the Centre. Conspiracy. Given such circumstances, the time has come for the Supreme Court to rewrite that law, if necessary, by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Equally worrying is the recent trend of using coercive powers, especially the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, against members of the opposition. No one can forgive illegal acts. Persons, if guilty, should be acted upon under the law. But can one believe that such illegalities are done only in opposition? There has not been a single case against a member of the ruling party since 2014. Is dishonesty the only advantage of opposition parties?

way forward

The Prime Minister should seriously introspect on the erosion of public life and fix things. The judiciary should be aware of the ground reality and should not allow such politically motivated investigations. Judges should grant immediate anticipatory bail or regular bail in such cases. Political parties, the judiciary and civil society must take steps to ensure that democracy does not fail. Opposition must be tolerated because if it is left to the party in power to decide what is healthy and unhealthy criticism, then every subsequent criticism will be considered unhealthy.

During the Constituent Assembly debate, Naziruddin Ahmed warned: “If you do not wish to create anti-Congress sentiment… it is healthy and strong.” Ramnarayan Singh went ahead and said, “The government which does not like the opposition and always wants to be in power, is not a patriot but a anti-national government.”

Also, the opposition has to be credible and strong, but the opposition has to make itself credible and strong. It should feel the pulse of the people. Unless he makes himself respectable, he cannot demand any respect. This is the biggest challenge facing the country today.

The opposition should also work constructively. Attacking the Prime Minister alone is not conducive to democracy. Our constitutional goal was to establish a sovereign, democratic republic. It is the responsibility of Mr. Modi and his party to ensure that India does not turn into an undemocratic republic.

Dushyant Dave is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India and former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.