The Preamble betrayed Chandrabhan Prasad http://dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=prasad%2Fprasad192%2Etxt&writer=prasad
Whose interest does the judiciary serve when faced with a clash between the spirit of the Constitution and the interest of traditional society? For argument's sake, let's just ask one new question to revive an old debate: Has any member of the judiciary read the spirit to the Constitution? In other words, has any member of the judiciary ever read the Preamble of the Constitution, truthfully? A Preamble sets a book's agenda. The whole body of the book, therefore, must primarily address the concerns articulated, albeit in nugget form, by the Preamble. Ergo: The entire Indian Constitution must be focused on the issues encapsulated in the opening paragraph. What does the Preamble aspire for? It is filled with terms such as "Justice - Social, economic, political, and equality". Creating a *just* social order for India, thus, becomes the prime objective of the India as a *nation state*. What is the prime mandate for the higher judiciary, the Supreme Court to be precise? To primarily protect the Constitution, and, implicitly, the interests of the Republic? Or, is it to serve the *justice deficient*interests of traditional Indian society? When the Constitution - duly approved by the Constituent Assembly which enterprisingly claimed and owned up the legacy of the freedom movement - talks of *justice*, we must figure out the sources of *injustice*. Are the sources of *injustice* rooted out in the Republic, or traditional society? The answer is simple: The Constitution is asking the Republic to correct traditional society. Traditional society, therefore, in the mind of the Constitution is the fountainhead of *injustice*. Where does the judiciary stand between the Constitution and traditional society - a society structured along caste lines, with devious designs of castes and the outcastes? Take, for example, land reforms, *zamindari*abolition to be precise. Do the learned judges know of the medievalism of the *zamindar*s? Wasn't it necessary to abolish *zamindari* to reclaim the dignity of the largest section of India's population immediately after Independence? This forms the crust of the question: Why, after all, did the laws relating to *land reform*s became the first set of laws to be inserted in the now controversial Ninth Schedule? Relocating the Ninth Schedule in perspective, the ex-*zamindar*s, while fighting *zamindari* abolition, were using the judiciary to subvert land reforms - one of the noblest tasks initiated by the Jawaharlal Nehru Government. Under the *zamindari* system, the peasants were treated as sub-humans. Millions of hectares of land got trapped in litigations. In fact, in the Bihar, Karnataka and Orissa, not one centimetre land was found as surplus during the first phase of the passing of Land Ceiling Acts. With whom was the judiciary during land reforms? Did it stand with the Republic, or with the traditional feudal society? Didn't the judges know what *zamindari* meant to the average citizens? Weren't their lordships aware of where the interests of the Indian Republic lay? Had they not read the Preamble of the very Constitution they were supposed to uphold? It is in this background that the Ninth Schedule should be understood. In the popular Dalit perception, the Indian Judiciary doesn't deliver * justice*. It is no exaggeration to say that the judiciary often *retard*s the course of justice. The judiciary sometimes takes *suo motu* cognisance of media reports highlighting glaring issues. Has the judiciary ever taken note of Dalit issues on the basis of media reports? For instances, when the legendary journalist in his ground-breaking research article, "In search of a Dalit journalist", published in this newspaper on November 16, 1996, showed that there isn't a Dalit journalist in Delhi's mainstream media establishments, did the Supreme Court call for any explanation from the editors? How can it be possible that a population base equal to the combined population of the UK, France and Italy can't produce a single Dalit journalist? Is it in the interest of the Constitution to keep Dalits excluded from India's public institutions? Reservations in Government jobs and education have been the only liberating tool yet. Because of reservations, there is a visible Dalit middle class. Has the judiciary ever been kind to this spectacular public policy for Dalits? Often, Dalits are denied justice from academic institutions. How can institutions like JNU and Delhi University award doctorates to Dalits, and refuse appointment on the ground of "merit"? Has the judiciary ever taken a *suo motu* cognisance of such news items? Recently, it was reported that not even one of Delhi's 80-plus degree colleges has a Dalit as principal. Did the judiciary take any note of it? Along with this Ninth Schedule debate, we must open up a new one. Whose interest does the judiciary serve when faced with a clash between the spirit of the Constitution and the interest of traditional Indian society? As a matter of fact, the Government would always want to sideline the judiciary by bringing a host of subjects under the Ninth Schedule. This is an unhealthy trend, and the judiciary has every right to protect its own rights. But while doing so, the judiciary should not punish the *social underclass*. It should make a distinction between issues, social and political. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for freedom. It is a battle for the reclamation of human personality." - Dr BR Ambedkar ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala run by Global Alternate Information Applications (GAIA) To post to this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
