Is it nonsense or the right to voice?

What you say is nonsense! You have no knowledge! There is a limit to tolerating you!

These are comments heard by the common man whenever his voice rises above that of the privileged class who have never known hunger or never been in situations where their fundamental rights to life have been questioned. For such people, the right to an independent voice is deemed nonsense. For them depriving an individual of his voice is a state-owned right. If the state owns such a right, then what is the sanctity of the fundamental rights provided by the constitution of our country? I would call that a deviation from democracy into despotism, a far cry from the provisions granted by the nation to the people of India, be it the high and the mighty or the low and the laity.

So if the Justice Krishna Iyer doctrine that says “all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution to subserve the common good”, doesn’t conform to a modern man’s concept of democracy, what is wrong in saying it aloud?

It brings me to the definition of the common good. Indira Gandhi was an elected Prime Minister when she declared an Emergency in India, which she felt was for the same 'Common Good!' So when these so-called elected ones are given the right to dictate their whims and fancies under the pretext of the common good, an ambiguity in its own sense, how do we know we are not aiding and abetting another despot?

No individual is bigger than the population he represents and not even the illustrious Krishna Iyer whose judgements are monumental and respected even in the United States, can be called infallible. Today’s wrongs could be tomorrow’s right; what is wrong in correcting them? I agree, that it was harsh on the current CJI’s side to call Justice Iyer’s contribution to article 39(b) a 'disservice'. But then should we be critical of the rhetoric or appreciate the spirit of law that stands upheld in the observation? No law or doctrine is perfect and perpetual. The only thing that has to remain perpetual is the voice of the majority and the rights of the common man.

Who is a common man? A commoner, or the masses, is otherwise an ordinary person in a community or nation with no significant social status, especially a member of neither royalty, nobility or any part of the aristocracy. This also should be read as a set of people whose access to law or its provisions is either limited or zilch.

The Law says in Latin, ignorantia juris non excusat, which means that “ignorance of the law is not an excuse”. But what happens when a huge percentage of the population has no access to the law?. Doesn’t it reflect a huge contradiction to the fundamental rights provided in the constitution that give the Right to equality (Article 14-18), Right to freedom (Article 19-22), Right against exploitation (Article 23-24), Right to freedom of religion (Article 25-28), Right to cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30), Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32-35). What do these rights mean to a common when he doesn’t know whether he has or can use these rights to protect his life and property?

The rise of Protestantism in England was due to the crude interferences of the church against the printing of the Bible in different languages, which meant the common man would have access to every word in the holy book, and thereby minimise the chances of any misinterpretation. Till then both the clergy and its willing stooges interpreted the tenets of the Bible in whichever way they wanted to, giving them absolute rights to persecute those who stood against them. It is the ignorance of the common man that was taken advantage of by those in power, those who have the access to law or the power to interpret and misinterpret it the way they want to.

Therefore, it is the common man whose voice needs to be heard by the ruling masters in a democracy, or it dwindles down to an educated pretence.

Whoever calls a common man’s doubts nonsense, unfortunately, represents a pathetically oligarchic tone of authoritarianism, and a blatant violation of the principles of fundamental rights provided to every citizen of the country.

So if the Chief Justice of India has unashamedly called an article of the constitution, archaic, it only shows that he has exercised his own right to voice. It also means he has perhaps over time realized the meaninglessness of the article that provides unlimited rights to the rulers. Therefore, his comments have to be evaluated by the spirit of the law, not by the letters of it. The letters have from time immemorial been used and misused by the forces of power. Hence it is the need of the hour to redress and rectify it. If there were no due process of rectification from time to time then why was the Constitution of India amended 106 times since 1950?

People who defend Stone Age theories must know that their stance sadly reflects their privileged life, offered to them by their rich lineage that never broke a sweat.

I want to remind the voices who pretend that the law is only meant to be deciphered by those who have studied it academically, that they are wrong. Law becomes one when it is not Greek or Latin for the common man. He is the one who is at the receiving end and it is better to have him at the giving end too.

Here you are, I call you out!

Sujil Chandra Bose

#Chiefjusticeofindia #everyone #highlight