The Opposition’s Vice-Presidential candidate, Justice (retired) B Sudershan Reddy, has come under criticism from senior BJP leaders in the last few days as he was part of the two-judge Bench that in 2011 disbanded the anti-Maoist Salwa Judum militia in Chhattisgarh. While Union Home Minister Amit Shah said last Friday that “Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020” had Justice Reddy not given the verdict (he reiterated the accusation on Monday), his party colleague Ravi Shankar Prasad also joined in Monday, saying the verdict reflected Reddy’s “inclination towards Maoism”.
In an interview, the former Supreme Court judge denies the allegations, saying the State has the right to combat violence but “cannot infringe upon fundamental rights”. He also says that though the numbers in the Electoral College are stacked against him, he will appeal to all MPs to consider his candidature on merit.
The Constitution of India and the values enshrined therein, all reflected in the Preamble. Like it is a duty of every citizen, so also my duty to talk about the Constitution, interpret it, implement it to the extent possible, and try to build a consensus, because we are increasingly getting polarised. In a diverse country like ours, this polarisation will lead to chaos and anarchy. That has to be avoided. If an opportunity comes my way, I shall promote that idea.
I don’t agree with that for the simple reason that political parties as such do not come and vote (for the V-P election). Its members come and vote. The Electoral College consists of the members of Parliament, not a political party. The Constitution and the statute have deliberately designed it to be a secret ballot, where there is no possibility of any political party issuing a whip … That value is to be respected by you and by me and every honourable MP. My effort will be to appeal to all the MPs to consider my candidature on merit.
This conscience and cross-voting, they’re all phrases formulated and put in the public domain by us. Ultimately, it is a matter of choice and that choice, I hope and trust, will be exercised by the MPs after duly taking into account the merits and demerits of each candidate. My job is to appeal.
I will be either meeting them or appealing to them through you and various other forums if I am not able to reach them because of the paucity of time.
Somebody is raising this issue after 14 years of the judgment. I did not say that the State must condone the violence unleashed by either a group or an organisation, whatever you may call it. The State has every right to fight such a menace of violence. The judgment merely said, ‘Don’t outsource it.’ It is the Constitutional duty, obligation, and responsibility of the sovereign State to deal with violence. That’s all I have said. In fact, I think if I rightly remember after 14 years, I used the expression menace of violence, but in the name of fighting the violence, you can’t create another violent group and both fight against each other. See, the monopoly to wield weapons has always been with the State. Right from Hobbes’ theory. It is not that everyone can take arms and start using them against each other. It is the State. I even used that expression monopoly. But in the process, we cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. If you remember, the qualification (for becoming a Salwa Judum member) was the fifth standard, and you called him SPOs (special police officers). The question came up, how long were these people trained, and for what period. A few weeks… And nothing. A man who is studying fifth standard, you recruit and give him a weapon, and both of them (the Maoist and him) were fighting and in the process, getting killed.
That is the honourable Home Minister’s understanding of the Right to Education. What is it that I can tell you? Mighty state, it can’t provide accommodation to its security forces. Schools and college buildings were occupied by the security forces and children were stopped from going to schools. I said, ‘No, this can’t be done.’
Yes. I was a little bit surprised. The mighty Home Minister, the most powerful Home Minister of this country, is raising this issue after 14 years. And it never occurred to him when they were fighting this menace that this judgment was the root cause or was coming in their way and tying their hands in dealing with them.
My ideology is the Constitution. My ideology is allegiance to the idea of equality, liberty, fraternity, the dignity of the individual, and justice. In that order. Social justice, economic justice, political justice. I am not saying it. The Preamble says it. The order is prescribed by the Preamble. I am a votary of social justice. If it means Leftism, I’m nobody to brand it, whether it is Left, Right, or Centre.
I am not a technical person, therefore I can’t say whether EVMs can be tampered with or not. But without proper electoral rolls, can there be a functioning democracy? The answer is obviously no. Somebody said, ‘Indians have become voters first and citizens later.’ This process of preparation of electoral rolls began even before the Constitution came into force. It was a simultaneous exercise undertaken even while the Constituent Assembly debates were going on. There was a Secretariat of the Constituent Assembly that was preparing the draft electoral rolls. It is sacrosanct. All possible efforts were made to ensure that the electoral roll is an inclusive one, not to exclude. Those days, it was very difficult, particularly in northern India, where women refused to give the name of their husbands. And pardanashin women (women with veils), they don’t give their name, they don’t give the name of their husband.
The EC is a high Constitutional instrumentality of the state. I wish it could have paid serious attention to this issue, instead of leaving it to the local electoral officers.
I don’t think it will be appropriate on my part to comment on the circumstances leading to Dhankhar ji’s resignation. One day, perhaps he will reveal the circumstances of his resignation.
I have had a glance at the Bill. Its constitutionality is suspect. That’s all I will say, because it has not been debated yet and we do not know what view the Joint Committee of Parliament will take, how it will be debated, how the Rajya Sabha will view it. After all, it is a Constitutional Amendment Bill requiring a two-thirds majority, whether the government will be able to build a consensus. It will be premature to make any comment.
Nothing much has changed and there is a need for a change. We must make it more transparent and accountable.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) is a better system … We can’t rule out the involvement of the state completely in the process of appointment of judges. Some mechanism must be devised where everyone plays an important role. It is not the occasion to make suggestions at this stage. It will be part of major judicial reforms that are overdue.
I’m not saying it is, whether it is transparent or not, but it certainly requires improvement.
I wish for confrontation between the Opposition and the Government to be avoided …We go back to the same question: the country is getting increasingly polarised, (there is) impatience and disrespect for others’ views. You write an editorial and I may have a serious difference of opinion about it. But there is a way we debate it. We don’t engage in name-calling. I will write an article. If you are not willing to publish, I will go to somebody else and project my viewpoint. That is how democracy functions.
