Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Even a cursory reading of the report of the National Commission to review the Constitution will reveal that the fears expressed in certain circles at the time it was constituted two years ago were unfounded. Some political parties and groups had seen in the decision to review the Constitution the hidden agenda of the BJP to 8220;saffronise8221; the Constitution. In doing so, they overlooked the point that the golden jubilee celebration of the Indian republic was a good occasion to review the Constitution. After all a much larger commission had reviewed the American constitution as part of the bicentennial celebration of American independence. Needless to say, the appointment of Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah as chairman of the commission had gone a long way to scotch such fears. His assertion that the commission would not in any way alter the basic structure of the Constitution also helped in the process. Even so, it was not possible for the commission to keep its work above political controversies, however hard it might have tried. The resignation of former Speaker and Nationalist Congress Party leader P.A. Sangma from the commission a few days before it finalised its report and a dissenting note by a member do not, however, detract from the fact that the recommendations it made were, by and large, consensual.
When a commission makes 58 suggestions which warrant appropriate amendments in the Constitution, and 86 others which need deliberations by Parliament, it is not possible to satisfy every section of public opinion. There are many recommendations which may not find acceptance from a cross section of the people. For instance, those who oppose the continuance of the system of reservation would say the commission went out of its way to extend it even to the private sector. Similarly its silence on certain special rights enjoyed by the minorities, which are now looked into by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, would be unacceptable to others. Charges have also been made that the commission frittered away the opportunity to overhaul the Constitution as it merely tinkers with its wording. For instance, far from radically altering the first-past-the-post system that makes way for hung Houses and uncertain verdicts, it merely makes the life of independent candidates miserable. Instead of taking a bold decision on whether a foreign-born citizen can hold certain offices in the country like the president and the prime minister, it left it to the discretion of the political class with a rider to hold a national debate before a decision is taken. That such a debate had indeed taken place and the judiciary had also given its verdict on the matter did not, perhaps, engage the commission8217;s attention.
