Batting for the citizenry

The recent judgement of the Honorable Supreme Court on misuse of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may not have takers in the political class of various hues but they certainly prove a few points. The first and foremost is that the apex court is doing yeoman service to the spirit of democracy by batting for the citizenry. There is one very basic requirement of a democracy — protecting the inalienable rights of the citizens. Democracy after all is government of the people, by the people, for the people. It survives when its institutions are intact and maintain their integrity. Rulers in democracy are not rulers but servants who represent citizen interests and are there to protect citizen rights. It was in sync with this sprit that the first Prime Minister of this country said, “Fellow countrymen, it has been my privilege to serve India and the cause of India’s freedom for many years. Today I address you for the first time officially as the first servant of the Indian people, pledged to their service and betterment”. However, power has its own impact on human personality and rightly did British statesman Lord Acton say that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. History has stood witness to this axiom time and again. Trappings of power convert rulers into absolute monarchs, and the same streak runs even today. We can observe this in the goings on at our neighborhood. And even many modern day heads of government in strong and well entrenched democracies nurse tendencies towards absolute monarchism. It is, but, human nature that makes one crave for absolute power. It was to thwart such tendencies, and India has seen that in the past, that the founding fathers of Indian constitution created checks and balances through the institution of judiciary, which was given an independent status and ensure that the Executive or the Legislation do not go astray. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr one of the most illustrious Jurists of US had said that the life of law has not been logic but experience. Legal system is an ever evolving system and the basic objective of law is to provide Justice to the people. Naturally, change, and re-evaluation of law is mandated by the very philosophy that governs human existence and development. Change being the only certainty, it must be welcome. It is the experience that brings about the realisation for need for change. Law then must also follow the same principle. What is relevant today may not remain so tomorrow. This is why law must consider public opinion and public sentiment. Vidur, the wise man of the Mahabharata had said that like humans, laws and policies have a life and are rendered invalid beyond that. It is against this back drop that the present judgment and some other recent ones that the Apex court has pronounced need to be seen. In words of Holmes if there is any principle of the constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. Law must protect citizens, but it cannot be an instrument of settling scores. When evidences of misuse are legion, it is right to underscore that the law cannot be allowed to be a charter for exploitation or oppression by the unscrupulous or the police for extraneous reasons against citizens. The judgement is welcome.