Spare not the Constitution lynchers!

In the mourning atmosphere following the death of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a very sordid incident missed sight of the media. The incident relates to the mob lynching of a person carrying the national flag on the Independence Day in Srinagar, J&K. Obviously, the anti-national elements were the perpetrators of this heinous crime. By indulging in the act of lynching, these anti-national elements have not only breached the personal freedom of the victim who is out and out a patriot but also insulted the entire nation by showing disrespect to the National flag.

Truly, the National flag symbolises the national integrity and pride. It represents all 135+ crore of the people of India. In particular, defence and security forces live and die for upholding the pride and dignity of the national flag. Not only in our country, the national flag is respected and accorded the highest honour, but in all other countries also a national flag of a country enjoys the highest regards and reverence. 

By lynching a patriotic person who perhaps wanted to hoist the national flag on the Independence Day as a matter of right, the anti-national separatist groups have once again challenged the sovereignty and liberty of the country and its citizens including the Kashmiris. Enough is enough now. These anti-national elements have been given a very long rope by the successive governments of our country.

Now it is the time to eschew this kid-gloves policy and deal with them very firmly notwithstanding the consequent political fallout of such stern action within and out of the country.

The overt and covert supporters of these anti-national elements wherever they may be, too should be erased at the earliest for nobody is above the Constitution, nobody can be tolerated who insults the national flag and prevents a patriot to hoist the national flag. In fact, the political parties and fringe groups extending support to the anti-national elements are also no less than such anti-national elements. The Constitutional lynchers are even more dangerous than those indulging in lynching of the alleged rapists or cow slaughterers.

Breach of protocol in TN
One more premeditated incident to show disrespect to judiciary has come to light now. Recently, during the swearing-in ceremony of the newly appointed Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani, the High Court judges were made to sit behind the Ministers and police officers. 

This is nothing but clear violation of the protocol. And if the media reports are to be believed, this breach or violation was not unintentional, but a cleverly designed plot by the anti-national lobby in the government who wanted to humiliate the judges of the High Court and thereby the whole judiciary.

What is more intriguing is the fact that the Registrar General of the High Court who wanted to satisfy himself about the sitting arrangements was not allowed to do so. Rightly, the outgoing acting Chief Justice M.S Ramesh has demanded an explanation from the officials concerned. 

The Madras High Court Advocates Association also condemned the unceremonious and undignified manner in which the sitting arrangements were made. 

Though the Governor had reportedly intervened in the matter and pacified the Judges of the High Court, the matter deserves a very serious view. An investigation into the entire episode should be conducted by a sitting judge of the High Court and severe punishment should be given to the persons responsible for such a faux pas.

‘Ridiculing husband is cruelty’
“Cruelty” is a ground which, if proved, entitles a husband or wife to get divorce. Recently, a division bench of Justice Shaffique and Justice P Somarajan in V V Prabhakaran vs. T Chandramathi has observed that ridiculing the husband before his close friends, relatives and colleagues and challenging his dignity amounts to cruelty.

Setting aside the judgement of the Family Court, the High Court granted divorce to the 70-year-old man. The High Court observed:
“Various letters and complaints written by the respondent against her husband before the authorities wherein the husband was working, ridiculing him among the officials, friends and relatives is well evident from the oral evidence tendered by PW2 to PW14 and Exhibits A1 to A 38.

Ridiculing the husband among his close friends, relatives and also before the officials wherein he was working and challenging his dignity amounts to cruelty in all means.” The Court further observed that this cannot be condoned at a letter point of time as it will remain in the mind of the petitioner as an incurable injury.

A question of propriety
In our scheme of democracy, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are the three pillars on which the governance as per Constitution rests. These pillars are autonomous and independent from others. This ensures a fine system of checks and balances. The functions of each wing of the Constitution are well defined. While the Legislature enacts, revises and  repeals laws, the Executive enforces them.

The judiciary ensures that the laws and rules made are not excessive or violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens. It also sees to it that the Executive enforces them in letters and spirit and to ensures this, it undertakes judicial review of the actions of the Executive. 

It is also pertinent to note that the governments of the Centre as well as States are the biggest litigants in the country. A vast majority of cases are filed by or against the governments. The actions or inactions of the government and other bodies controlled by the government are generally the subject matters of litigations.

Seen in this background, the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and other Ministers in their Cabinet are directly or indirectly responsible for the acts of omissions and commissions. The judges are supposed to scan their decisions whenever challenged and pronounce the verdict. Therefore, judges ought to exercise restraint in their public utterances and not to praise or condemn the political heads of the central as well as state governments. 

The newly appointed Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Justice Mukesh Rasikbhai Shah is certainly entitled to have his personal opinion about the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and regard him as “a Model and a Hero” in his private life, but so far as his public utterances in the media are concerned, they are not acceptable. 

It is said that justice not only should be done, but it also should seem to have been done. Suppose, tomorrow a matter involving the action or inaction by the central government is listed before Justice M R Shah, then the other side would be quite justified in levelling the charge of being biased or prejudiced on him citing his media praise for the Prime Minister.

Perhaps because of this question of propriety, until recently some judges were keeping a safe distance from the politicians of both hues, those with power and those without power. The latest disturbing trend of hobnobbing with politicians started with a judge of the Supreme Court (since retired) meeting an MP at the former’s official residence.

Good gesture by Attorney General
The Attorney General for India K K Venugopal has donated rupees one crore to Kerala Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund to help the victims of flood havoc. His son and senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal too, has contributed another rupee fifteen lakh for the relief activities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has collected a sum of rupees thirty lakh from its members and transferred to the authorities.