The essence of democracy is the idea of “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. The people are the kings in a democracy, since they are the ones who choose the best among them to govern them and fulfil their aspirations and further the nation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi always says that the Janata is the janardan, which means that the people are God. Democracy is people-centric and its roots should be strong for the fruits of welfare and development to reach citizens in the remotest corners of the country. Both Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay’s Antyodaya and Mahatma Gandhi’s Gram Swaraj kept in mind the true spirit of democracy while implementing government policies. But, in order to carry out functions objectively in a democratic country, the Constitution must be the guide to operate all systems with reasonable checks and balances to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens. According to the Constitution of India, no laws or enactments can prevail when those provisions infringe on the fundamental rights of the people of the nation.
The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 20, 21, 21A, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 are available to all persons, whether citizens of Bharat or foreigners, whereas Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 are available only to the citizens of Bharat. Hence, the interests of both Indian citizens and foreigners are protected by the Constitution. As per experts, while drafting the Constitution and setting up the system of checks and balances in governance, the Constituent Assembly’s debates had been vital, especially to understand the spirit of the Constitution. Everyone discharging their duties in the system was required to exercise their duties and responsibilities in accordance with the Articles laid down in the Constitution and not allowed to act beyond them.
In our democratic system, three pillars had been established initially as a safeguarding mechanism with adequate checks and balances: Parliament or the legislature, to frame policies, the executive for the implementation of the policies as laid down by Parliament, and the judiciary, to review whether the enactments, decisions and implementation of policies are valid according to the Constitution. Ultimately, the Constitution provided the opportunity to cease any policies which violate the provisions and spirit of the Constitution through the exercise of power by the judiciary.
In the recent past, we saw many incidents of interference between the judiciary and the two other pillars. Most particularly, the judiciary has played an important role in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where the government was facing challenges frequently due to unscrupulous behaviour which went against the basic premise of the Constitution. Several cases have been pending in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the state government, mostly pertaining to the breach of trust of the farmers who offered their lands within a land pooling system for the construction of the capital city. They were part of a valid agreement through the AP CRDA Act, but later the new government under the leadership of Chief Minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy declared intentions to scrap plans for building the capital in Amaravati, against the interest of the farmers and the Constitution, repealing the AP CRDA Act and enacting new Laws for the trifurcation of the capital. Numerous cases were filed against the YSRCP government in the Supreme Court and High Court. I too, as a citizen of India and a resident of Andhra Pradesh, filed a PIL in this matter of the violation of the fundamental rights of the farmers and wasting the funds of the State Exchequer. The honourable High Court gave its verdict against the repeal of the AP CRDA recently, and trials on the remaining matters are still going on.
As far as Amaravati, the proposed capital of Andhra Pradesh, is concerned, there will be a landmark judgement by the courts. Apart from this, the AP Panchayati Raj Act, amended in contradiction to Article 243K of the Constitution to infringe upon the rights of the existing State Election Commissioner, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court to reinstate the existing SEC. Further, the state government of Andhra Pradesh under the leadership of Jaganmohan Reddy and the ranks and files of the Executive had not cooperated to conduct local body elections. The full bench of the High Court favoured conducting the elections as the decision of the SEC came into force under Article 243K of the Constitution by showcasing the Covid vaccination programme after issuing the local body elections schedule by the State Election Commission.
The Supreme Court gave a direction to conduct the elections as per the rights of the State Election Commission. Even the Executive failed to consider the fundamental rights of the citizens regarding decisions like forcing English-medium instructions and replacing Telugu-medium schools. Through the directions of the apex court, the decision has been reversed recently. We also saw a landmark judgement in the SR Bommai case, which became a yardstick for present judgements for when there is a constitutional deadlock in any particular state pertaining to the Floor Test in the Assembly and the roles and responsibilities of Governors and Speakers when there is a breakdown in the constitutional mechanism in any state.
Recently, the Union Government accepted the Supreme Court’s direction for the postponement of the three farm laws for 18 months to sort out the issues between the government and farmers’ associations by incorporating a committee. All these instances show that the Constitution of India has provided a system of checks and balances to protect the fundamental and other rights of citizens through the Judiciary.
Whether it is the Union or state government, they are required to maintain propriety while making and executing laws. While the Union government respected the judiciary and followed its directions regarding the three farm laws, the AP government has unleashed an open attack on the judiciary’s independence after the numerous verdicts on the constitutional and other violations by the state government. However, instead of rectifying mistakes, out of the arrogance of holding absolute power, Jaganmohan Reddy and his party representatives joined a chorus against the judiciary. This forms an unhealthy relation between the legislature and judiciary, where mutual cooperation is a primary requirement, instead of claiming supremacy. Duties and responsibilities are required to be discharged by the three pillars of our democracy within the ambit of our Constitution. Lastly, the media as the fourth pillar also enshrines the values of democracy, especially the very important fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and ensures that the values of the other three remain intact in the interest of the people of our country.
The writer holds a degree in commerce and works as an FCA. The views expressed are personal.
