Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - being learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!
SHARE:
Landmark cases and important articles of the
Indian Constitution - Part 2
11.0 CONTROVERSIAL CASES
11.1 K.M. Nanavati Vs State of Maharshtra
Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case where Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. With Nanavati frequently away on assignments, the lonely Sylvia fell in love with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a friend of Nanavati.
The public and jury sympathized with Nanavati, who had a decorated career with the Navy and an exemplary character. They felt, somehow, he had acted honorably.
Sylvia had been steadfast in her support to her husband all through the trial. She had gotten over her infatuation with Ahuja. She and Nanavati were the main witnesses for the defense. Sylvia was reportedly a teary-eyed witness. All her letters to Prem Ahuja became public and were served as evidence. Dressed in a white sari, her time in the witness stand was apparently rough.
The defense presented a picture of the 34 year-old, unmarried Ahuja being a playboy and of the death being accidental. The tabloid, Blitz, run by Mr Karanjia, stridently supported Nanavati as did the Parsi Panchayat and the Indian Navy. Nanavati was on the stand for two days giving testimony.
The Sindhi community stood by Mamie Ahuja. She testified for her brother. "He was going to marry Sylvia provided she divorced Nanavati" was her contention. The prosecution argued that the murder was premeditated and Nanavati deserved maximum sentencing.
Interesting time it was for the country, Nehru was the Prime Minister, VijayaLakshmi Pandit was the governor of Maharashtra, India was trying to crawl out of a colonial mentality, Mumbai was building a new identity.
At 7.00 PM, the jury returned with the verdict of "Not Guilty", 8:1.
When Nanavati came out of the court, the crowd went crazy. Rs 100 bills smeared with lipstick rained on him like confetti. He had already been receiving marriage proposals from women, who hoped he would divorce his firang wife and become available. He was a hero. A real one.
The judge referred the case to the High Court and an appeal was filed. Because of the many issues in finding an unbiased jury and problems in having a jury properly follow the judge's directive, the jury system was abolished, forever, in the country! This was the last case by jury trial in India.
In the High Court and later, the Supreme Court, a judge ruled on the case. The case revolved on what happened in the bathroom on the fateful day of April 27, 1959. The prosecution stated premeditation, the defense rested on accidental firing.
The High Court found Nanavati guilty of homicide amounting to murder and sentenced him to life in prison. The Supreme Court upheld the decision on November 11, 1961.
Nanavati had to resign his post in the Navy. He had already sold his possessions - car, refrigerator, camera, Sylvia's jewelry, and such to pay the legal costs. The children were having a hard time in school and had to be taken out.
The Parsi panchayat held a huge rally and submitted a petition to transfer Nanavati to the custody of the Navy, but that did not happen. Nanavati apparently was stoic, not giving to public display of emotion when the life sentence was handed. He disappeared behind the gates of Arthur Road Prison after kissing his sobbing wife goodbye.
11.2 Raj Narain Vs. Indira Gandhi
Raj Narain, a socialist stalwart and Indira Gandhi’s opponent, had contested the Indian general election, 1971 against Indira Gandhi, who represented the constituency of Rae Bareilly in the Lok Sabha. Indira was re-elected from Rae Bareilly by a two-to-one margin of the popular vote, and her Indian National Congress (R) party won a sweeping majority in the Indian Parliament. Raj Narain filed a petition to appeal the verdict, alleging that Indira Gandhi used bribery, government machinery and resources to gain an unfair advantage in contesting the election. Narain specifically charged Indira of using government employees as election agents and for organising campaign activities in the constituency while still on the payroll of the government.
The Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices, and she declared national Emergency on June 26, announcing on AIR that it was a necessary response to the "deep and widespread conspiracy which has been brewing ever since I began to introduce certain progressive measures of benefit to the common man and woman of India". Thousands, including Opposition firebrands like Jayaprakash Narayan, George Fernandes, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, were held under MISA-the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, dubbed the Maintenance of Indira and Sanjay Act.
The Times of India compared the verdict to "firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket". The Congress (R) also staged numerous protests across the country in support of Indira. However, the verdict helped galvanize the opposition political parties, who demanded that Indira Gandhi resign from office immediately. Jayaprakash Narayan, the leader of the Janata Morcha, a coalition of opposition political parties, called for a campaign of civil disobedience to oust Indira's government. On June 25, 1975 a state of emergency was declared by the President of India Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, upon the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The government argued that the political disorder was a threat to national security. Using the sweeping powers granted by the Emergency decree, thousands of opposition leaders and activists were arrested, press censorship was introduced and elections were postponed. During this period, Indira Gandhi's Congress (R) used its parliamentary majority to amend the Indian Constitution and overwrite the law that she had been found guilty of violating. When the government finally called elections in 1977, the opposition Janata Party alliance defeated Indira Gandhi's Congress (R) party. Raj Narain defeated Indira Gandhi in the Rae Bareilly constituency by a margin of 55,200 votes.
11.3 The Taj Corridor Case
The Taj Heritage Corridor case is an alleged scam wherein 2002-2003, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mayawati and a minister in her government, Nasimuddin Siddiqui, were charged with corruption. The Taj Corridor project was intended to upgrade tourist facilities near the Taj Mahal and was to be implemented during her tenure as Chief Minister.
The then BJP government at the Centre gave the Environmental Clearance required for the project near Taj Mahal. However, later on the BJP backed out and then started saying that the project was not cleared by the Environment Ministry and blamed Mayawati for starting construction work near the Taj Mahal.
It has been alleged that Mayawati embezzled the money dedicated for this project. The case is currently under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Initially, the case saw some rapid progress, when CBI conducted extensive searches on her various addresses, and claimed that though she had claimed income of only Rs. 11 million during her tenure as CM, her bank balance in a single bank went up to 25 million and total assets held by her were estimated at Rs. 150 million. At one point a warrant was expected for her arrest, but she was granted a stay. In September 2003 Ajay Agarwal, the former government counsel in the project, began accusing Mayawati of enriching herself from the Corridor project and also stated that Mayawati had recently acquired property both in her name and in the care of her relatives.
However, since late 2003, investigations appeard to have slowed down; there were speculations in the media about political interference, and the Supreme Court of India has several times pulled up the CBI for its tardy progress in the case. Media sources reported that various officials who had been investigating the case were transferred to other duties. In June 2007, Uttar Pradesh Governor T. V. Rajeswar refused sanction to prosecute citing that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Mayawati and other accused.
In his 23-page order, he said: "the fact that the Mission Management Board, consisting of officers of both the State and the Central Government, regularly met and discussed the project and the fact that even a sum of INR170 million (US$2.8 million) was spent through the Central Government public sector undertaking, NPCC, all go to show that the serious offences with which Mayawati and the Minister were charged do not stand scrutiny." The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the CBI and refused to direct the Governor to prosecute her. On 5 November 2012, Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court upheld trial court's order to close the case for want of sanction to prosecute. It was thought that the case was effectively ended before going to trial. However, on 28 January 2013, a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice H.L. Dattu and Ranjan Gogoi agreed to examine the case and asked the relevant parties to file their response.
11.4 The JMM Bribery case
In July 1993, the Narsimha Rao government was facing a no-confidence motion, because the opposition felt that it did not have sufficient numbers to prove a majority. It was alleged that Rao, through a representative, offered millions of rupees to members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), and possibly a breakaway faction of the Janata Dal, to vote for him during the confidence motion. Shailendra Mahato, one of those members who had accepted the bribe, turned approver. In 1996, after Rao's term in office had expired, investigations began in earnest in the case. In 2000, after years of legal proceedings, a special court convicted Rao and his colleague, Buta Singh (who is alleged to have escorted the MPs to the Prime Minister).
Rao was sentenced to three years in prison for corruption. "I sentence the accused PV Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh to rigorous imprisonment up to three years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000," the judge said in his order. Rao appealed to the Delhi High Court and remained free on bail. In 2002, the Delhi High Court overturned lower court's decision mainly due to the doubt in credibility of Mahato's statements (which were extremely inconsistent) and both Rao and Buta Singh were cleared of the charges.
12.0 PROVISIONS RELATING TO LANGUAGES
Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India states that the official language of the Union of India shall be Hindi in Devnagari script. To fulfill the mandate of this provision the Government of India, the Ministry of Communications decided to have a Hindi Cell in each Central Government department and Central Government instrumentality with the object of promoting progressive use of Hindi in the official notings and communications. Accordingly, it framed Rules in 1983 under Article 309 of the Constitution. There is no question of equity in this case because it is a well settled that law prevails over equity if there is a conflict. Equity can only supplement the law, and not supplant it. As the Latin maxim states “Dura lex sed lex” which means "The law is hard, but it is the law". Article 343 of the Constitution states that Hindi in Devnagari script is the official language of India. The general misconception is that it is the national language.
The article also states that English is an additional language for official work.
Article 345 says India may officially adopt one or more languages in use in the state or Hindi/English as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that state.
The Official Language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari Script but the form of numericals to be used for the official purposes of Union shall be the international form of Indian numericals [Article 343 (1)].
The Official Language of the Union shall be the official language for communication between one State and other and between a State and the Union [Article 346], but two or more States may agree to have Hindi as the Official Language for communication amongst them.
Article 345 provides that the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State.
The Constitution also gives right to every person to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State as the case may be [Article 350].
Article 344 provides for the appointment of a Commission on official language. At the expiration of five years from the commencement of the Constitution and after ten years, the President shall appoint a Commission. The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and other members representing the different languages [Article 344 (4), (5), (6)].
The Commission is to make recommendation to the President regarding following matters:
- progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purpose of the Union;
- restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purpose of the Union;
- the language to be used for the proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Courts;
- the form of numericals to be used for any one or more specified purposes of the Union; and
- any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as regards the Official Language of the Union and the language for communication between the Union and a State or between one State and another and their use.
The languages which are constitutionally recongnised in the Eighth Schedule are
- Assamese
- Bengali
- Bodo
- Dogri
- Gujarati
- Hindi
- Kannada
- Kashmiri
- Konkani
- Maithili
- Malyalam
- Manipuri
- Marathi
- Nepali
- Oriya
- Punjabi
- Sanskrit
- Santhali
- Sindhi
- Tamil
- Telgu
- Urdu
In January 2010, while dealing with a complaint relating to packing of commercial products, Gujarat High Court had ruled that Hindi was not the national language. The High Court bench, headed by then Chief Justice S.J. Mukherjee, had refused to direct the authorities to carry details of the packed goods in Hindi, saying though it was one of the official languages, it was not the national language. The judgment has since not been challenged in any court of the country.
13.0 Article 371D and Telangana
As we know, the Telangana movement refers to a group of related people and political activities organized to support the creation of a new state of Telangana, from the state of Andhra Pradesh in South India.
Article 371-D, which was inserted through the 32nd Amendment in 1973, empowers the President to issue orders from time to time providing for equitable opportunities for people belonging to different parts of the state.
This provision, which has overriding effect on other Articles of the Constitution, was brought in following agreement on a six-point formula between leaders of the state on September 21, 1973. This formula was aimed at a uniform approach for "accelerated development of the backward areas" of Andhra Pradesh, and to provide "equitable opportunities" to different areas of the state in the matter of education and employment in public services.
The proposal to reconstruct the boundaries of Telangana and include two districts of Rayalseema - Kurnool and Anantapur - as part of Telangana is believed to have been examined by the GoM.
After this proposal, the united Andhra Pradesh was divided equally and both the states got 147 seats each in the assembly and 45 seats in the legislative council. Both Kurnool and Anantpur have proximity to Hyderabad and have sizeable Muslim population. However, the move was opposed by Telangana Rashtra Samiti and BJP, but the-then supported by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and some Andhra Pradesh Congress leaders.
It is the prerogative of the President to give time to the state Assembly - minimum 10 days - to return the Bill to the Centre. However, the Assembly resolution is not binding under the Constitution. Earlier, the then united Madhya Pradesh Assembly was given 40 days by the then President to consider the state bifurcation Bill when Chhattisgarh was carved out.
On 2nd June 2014, Telangana came into existence with K. Chandrashekhar Rao as the first chief minister, “Jaya Jaya he Telangana” as its state song, and Hyderabad as the joint capital for 10 years. Recently, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Chandrababu Naidu announced that the new capital of Andhra Pradesh will be Amrawati.
14.0 CONCLUSION
Frequently there are situations of opinion clashes between the legislatures and judiciary. Legislators, given their popular and appeasing character, do engage in politics of short term gains but despite that are well-equipped to decide upon the issues of social nature given their wide social background and pluralistic interactions. These function as bodies representative of living social temperature compared to the brain of high judiciary with a miniscule base and largely unrepresentative nature of the opinions and influence.
The judiciary is the ultimate protector of the principles enshrined in our constitution. It has to assess, when the need so arises, whether the actions taken by the legislature and the executive are in harmony with the constitution, or in violation. The elected representatives of the people, on the other hand, do tend to give into populist tendencies and may overstep the limits set by the constitution makers. At the same time, in a rapidly evolving society, the contours of acceptable and unacceptable may change very fast, making established judicial precedence seem out of place.
Thus, the debate will continue. All the pillars will need to constantly assess their work and output not only in terms of what the constitution makers thought fit for India, but also in terms of an evolving socio-economic milieu.
COMMENTS