An Intellectual Overreach

The recent Decision of Supreme Court shall qualify as Electoral Reforms - "Decriminalization of Politics" but to call it Judicial Activism or Overreach shall be an Intellectual Overreach in my view.

The term Judicial Overreach implies Judiciary surpassing its Constitutional Mandate and Judicial Activism generally refers to the suo moto action by Judiciary. If we verify these conditions here, first, it is case of Supreme Court abiding by its Constitutional Mandate by upholding the Constitution above any other Law. If Section 8 (4) did not pass the test of Constitutionality, it is the duty of Supreme Court to strike it down. So it did giving its decision while considering a Civil Public Interest Litigation and not suo moto.

In order to prevent any chaos because of this verdict, SC has also clarified many aspects of the decisions including the applicability and execution of the same. The interpretation of RP Act vis-a-vis Constitution by SC cannot be doubted or questioned either and if there is any doubt the Verdict explains the Constitutional position of Section 8 (4) with respect to the Article 101, 102 (1) (e), 190 and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution.

In another case that was a under the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court, it upheld the 2004 decision of Patna High Court which had held that a person not eligible to be an elector cannot contest election. Again if we go by the basic qualification for any MLA or MP the most important aspect is him being a Voter or an elector as given in the Constitution, so how the RP Act could discriminate a Citizen by not allowing him to vote and allowing him to contest election while in Jail. It seems a logical paradox.

Had the SC declared the Section 62(5) of RP Act void and unconstitutional, it would have been an Overreach, but by making it equally applicable in all situations it has only upheld its duty and restricted itself within its mandate. If the political parties and executive believe that the law is wrong, they have all the right to amend it but we all would agree that we cannot question the Logic in the interpretation by the Honourable Court.

Regarding the implication of these decisions and the fear that this gives away the power of disqualifying an MP(s) or MLA(s) to the Courts, it is to be understood that the courts are only deciding whether or not the accused is guilty and there by Convicting or Acquitting him / her. This is by all means the basic function of Judiciary and if a person gets disqualified because of this, it is the mandate of Constitution and not the Judiciary.

Moreover, if as a result of such disqualification, any Government on a thin majority falls, the onus of such loss shall be put on the political class. Politics being a field which is so intensely Value Oriented, should it not be the responsibility of the Political parties to ensure that a person who is likely to get convicted should not be a part of them and has no moral authority to claim to be the representative of people?

It is definitely unfortunate that after all the debates, discussions, Committees and their reports that has been produced in last almost 50 years on the all important Electoral Reforms, finally it takes a SC verdict to bring the reform that is welcomed. It only goes on to show the stubbornness and lethargy of the Political Executive and the political class as a whole and brings forward the need of better values and ethics in the political arena.