"Constitution is lived by people": SC says safeguarding democracy a collective responsibility
New Delhi, August 13
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that safeguarding constitutional democracy is a "collective responsibility", as it heard the Uddhav Thackeray faction's challenge to the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the "real Shiv Sena" and allotting it the party name and "bow-and-arrow" symbol.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observation during arguments by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who urged the Court to reconsider the existing constitutional framework governing disqualification of legislators and the ECI's role in deciding party-symbol disputes.
"The Constitution is lived by the people," Justice Bagchi said, emphasising that preserving constitutional democracy cannot be the responsibility of the judiciary alone.
The observation came after the Chief Justice said the question of who should decide disqualification of legislators "needs a relook" and suggested that the task could instead be entrusted to an independent tribunal.
Sibal, appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray faction, responded that Parliament was unlikely to alter the mechanism as ruling parties could benefit from the existing arrangement. "So only Your Lordships can correct it. Ultimately, the burden of keeping our democracy alive is with you, not with us," he said.
Justice Bagchi, however, stressed that safeguarding constitutional democracy was a "collective responsibility", observing that "The Constitution is lived by the people."
The CJI also cautioned against underestimating other constitutional institutions, telling Sibal, "Let us not underestimate our other institutions. They are also quite committed."
Sibal maintained that the judiciary had an important role in safeguarding constitutional values and said the present case provided an opportunity to protect the democratic principles embodied in the Constitution.
Sibal also challenged the ECI's reliance on subsequent developments to determine entitlement to a party symbol under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.
He warned that allowing subsequent political developments to influence the determination could enable those who acquire political power to consolidate support and thereby encourage defections.
"The proposition that subsequent events can establish a faction's entitlement to the symbol is a very dangerous proposition of law," Sibal submitted.
The hearing will resume on August 18.
— ANI
Reader Comments
"The Constitution is lived by the people" — this is such a powerful statement. It reminds us that democracy isn't just about voting once every five years. We need to be vigilant every single day. The Uddhav vs Shinde saga is a textbook example of how political manipulation can undermine democratic values. Good on the CJI for suggesting an independent tribunal for disqualification cases.
Honestly, both factions are playing the same game. The people of Maharashtra voted for Shiv Sena, not for individual leaders. This whole tussle over the 'bow and arrow' symbol feels like a circus while the common man is struggling with inflation and unemployment. Politicians should focus on real issues instead of fighting over symbols and offices. 🤷♀️
Kapil Sibal's point is valid — Parliament won't change the law because the ruling party benefits from the current system. But he's also the same person who defended the previous government's actions when he was in power. The judiciary is our last hope, but even they seem overburdened. The real solution lies in strengthening local democracy and making MLAs accountable to their constituencies, not to party bosses in Delhi or Mumbai.
It's interesting to see how Indian democracy handles these internal party disputes. In the US, party primaries and state laws usually sort this out, but here it's become a constitutional matter. The idea of an independent tribunal for disqualification makes sense, but who appoints them? If politicians appoint them, they'll still be biased. This is a tough nut to crack, but I'm glad the SC is taking it seriously.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.