Skip to main content

Sabarimala: Civil servants ask SC to take legal action against BJP chief's "blatant" contempt

Counterview Desk
As many as 50 retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers have reportedly written to the Election Commission, Supreme Court, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Ramnath Kovind, seeking action against BJP chief Amit Shah for his speech in Kannur, Kerala, on October 27, he where extended support to those who had been protesting women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple despite the Supreme Court.
“We will uproot this government if it continues arresting people who protested the Supreme Court verdict,” Shah said, asking courts to issue “practical instructions to governments”. Published in a Congress-controlled site, IAS and IFS officers' letter said, Shah’s speech made a “scary reading” and amounts to “gross constitutional misconduct”.

Text of the letter:

We are a group of former civil servants of the All-India and Central Services, who have worked for decades with the Central and State Governments during our careers. We wish to make it clear that, as a group, we have no affiliation with any political party but believe in impartiality, neutrality and commitment to the Indian Constitution. We continue to uphold the oath of allegiance to our Constitution we took when we entered service.
Addressing a public meeting at Kannur, Kerala, on Saturday, the 27th October 2018, the President of the main ruling party at the centre made two interrelated comments: That the Supreme Court ought to have issued implementable orders; and, that the State Government in Kerala would be brought down for its temerity to enforce the Supreme Court orders regarding the entry of women from a certain age group into the Sabrimala temple by arresting and suppressing ‘Ayyappa devotees.’
Taken together, these two comments make for a scary reading that the President of the main ruling party at the centre is casting aspersions upon and questioning the lawful authority of the highest court of the land, asking the State government to refrain from implementing the Court’s orders, and is explicitly threatening to bring it down by vigilante action of political workers in the streets by fuelling their religious sentiments. There is also an implicit threat of the dismissal of the State Government by the Union Government.
Under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, framed by the Election Commission India (ECI) under the plenary powers vested in it by Article 324 of the Constitution, the Commission has codified the provisions relating to the functioning of political parties. This Order provides for the registration of political parties and its general bases by the ECI. It also provides for their recognition on the basis of their poll performance in the general elections.
In 1989, the Parliament inserted a new section 29A in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides that the registration of political parties by the Election Commission India (ECI) would involve an additional condition: every political party must include in its constitution/by-laws an undertaking that it ‘shall bear true faith allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India’.
The main ruling party at the centre too has made the necessary insertion of this additional condition in its Constitution. Further, the ECI has the power to suspend or withdraw the recognition of a recognised political party for its failure to observe the Model Code of Conduct or to follow lawful directions and instructions of the Commission.
It is well within the rights of any individual to critically opine upon a judicial decision without casting aspersions on the juridical intent. Indeed, judicial decisions do vary between one juridical level and another, and also from one bench to the other in the High and Supreme Courts. There is a due process in place to seek redressal from a decision that has caused one to feel aggrieved; this even applies, in some cases, to the decisions taken by a particular bench of the Supreme Court.
There have also been instances of legislative interventions in the Parliament by the executive to countermand an inconvenient judicial decision within the parameters set out in the Constitution. It is not open to any individual, group, or a political party to subvert the due constitutional process by threatening street action or adverse political action by the Union executive.
The cited public speech of the President of the ruling party at the centre amounts to a gross Constitutional misconduct. It is likely to have far-reaching adverse implications for our national polity if it passes unnoticed. The Hon’ble Prime Minister has been a great votary of strengthening federalism during his long innings as the Chief Minister of one of India’s frontline states.
As a Prime Minister, he has enthusiastically spoken of the cooperative federalism among the Union and the States. Therefore, the cited content of the public speech of the powerful President of the ruling party is as worrying as it is inexplicable even in the present times when political discourse touches a new low every day.
We respectfully ask:
  • The ECI to take cognisance of the cited public speech by the President of the main ruling party at the centre, to seek necessary explanations from the political party concerned, and to initiate thereafter such steps as deemed fit for defending the sanctity of the Constitution and of the laws made thereunder; 
  • The Head of the Government, the Hon’ble PM, to counsel his party President as appropriate and to categorically delink the executive’s support of his cited public speech. 
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of its contempt in such a blatant manner at a public forum, and to proceed forthwith with necessary legal action. 
  • The Head of the State, The Hon’ble President of India, to give his sage counsel to all concerned to maintain constitutional decorum and to enforce the corrective executive action to rectify its breach.

Comments

Ram Nagina said…
I extend my support for the demand of ex-Civil Servants

TRENDING

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

Bullet train acquisition: Land holding worth Rs 1.5 crore, Gujarat govt 'offer' Rs 8 lakh

By RK Misra*
Foundation stones laid by Prime Minister Narendra Modi litter India’s cities, towns and villages, but there are few projects which he has pursued with such perseverance and tenacity as the Ahmedabad-Mumbai bullet train one. However, the overwhelming state power notwithstanding, the farmers, whose lands are being acquired for the Modi government’s dream project, have no plans to give up the fight.

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."