
Somnathda is experiencing Hamlet8217;s dilemma of 8216;to be or not to be8217; with regard to his resignation as the Speaker. This issue has generated a furious controversy in which certain basic aspects about the Speaker8217;s office are overlooked. Unlike in the UK an MP elected as a Speaker in India is not required to give up membership of his political party. Nonetheless, once a member is elected Speaker, he represents the House. He belongs to all the members or belongs to none. This was laid down by our Supreme Court in its judgment in Holohon. Therefore, the demand for his resignation after withdrawal of support by CPIM suffers from the fallacy that the Speaker is the nominee of the CPIM after his election as Speaker. If the CPIM issues a whip to its members to vote against the trust motion, the Speaker is not bound by it because he is not expected to vote one way or the other. His function is to declare the result after ascertaining the votes.
However, a piquant situation can arise if there is equality of votes in which case the Constitution permits the Speaker to cast his vote. In that event will the Speaker be bound by the party whip? This is a grey area. However, the possibility of such a situation highlights the necessity for the Speaker at this stage to maintain silence, which is not merely an option, but a prudential compulsion. Let people speculate and the bookies make hay. The Speaker must display the inscrutable face of the sphinx.
Courts and Religious Beliefs
At times courts are faced with the delicate task of resolving conflict between law and religious beliefs. Two Muslim officials of the Indian Air Force were refused permission under the relevant regulation for having a beard while in service. This was challenged on the ground that their religion did not allow them to shave off their beards. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the plea inter alia on the ground that 8220;growing a beard, at the most, can be stated to be a personal choice and the same is not a compulsive requirement of a person professing Islam8221;. Ban on slaughter of goats on Bakri-Id was upheld by the Supreme Court on similar reasoning that sacrifice of goats on Bakri-Id was not an essential tenet of Islam nor was it an obligatory duty imposed on Muslims and therefore, religious freedom of the Muslims was not violated. Such judgments tend to be controversial because of the Court8217;s intrusion in the field of religion and interpretation of religious texts. One wonders how the Court can avoid deciding the issue when a claim is specifically made that a law violates a person8217;s fundamental right to practice his religion.
A Sikh man challenged a law in Ontario, Canada, which required all motorcyclists to wear a helmet on the plea that his religion obliged him to cover his long hair with nothing more than a turban. The judge upheld the law because his reading and research of medical statistics led him to the conclusion that helmets substantially reduced the risk of head injuries and death to motorcycle riders. Moreover, the judge sensibly ruled that courts couldn8217;t provide a remedy for such grievances which could be better solved in the political sphere. This approach conforms to that of our Justice Markandey Katju.
Advance Planning for Funeral
Life is replete with uncertainties except that some time we have to depart from this turbulent planet. However, making preparations well in advance for that inevitable event seems odd as in the case of former Prime Minister of UK Margaret Thatcher who at 82 is quite fit. The planners realise that it is inappropriate to speculate on her demise, but justify their detailed planning because a state funeral involves tremendous workouts. Besides there are doubts whether Britain8217;s overstretched armed forces would have the numbers to line the route which a coffin would probably take to
St Paul8217;s Cathedral. Logical perhaps, but it is certainly morbid to plan a living person8217;s funeral.