Trinity of Gods and Pillars of Democracy:Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Trinity of Gods and Pillars of Democracy

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

The Pioneer (30-07-2020)

Millennium Post (30-07-2020)

            (The triumvirate of Indian Democracy must adhere to checks and balances in discharging their specified duties; write Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao and VJM Divakar-Editor)

            The Hindu triumvirate, consists of three gods, namely, the Brahma, the Vishnu and the Maheswer (Shiva). These Gods independently hold three important portfolios and are responsible for the Creation, Constancy and Annihilation of the life and living as well as non-living. Vishnu is the Protector of the Universe, while Shiva's role is to Terminate it in order to refabricate. Brahma's job is Creation of the world, all creatures and non-living matter. Vishnu, Brahma and Maheswer are manifestation of one single unique god, the Parabrahma or Virat-Swaroop who is by all means an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicompetent.

The trinity of gods responsible for Creation, Constancy and Annihilation are the subservient to an un-known, intelligent and all-pervading phenomenon to reach whom is next to impossible in normal course. He or she charts their destiny or actions and activities which they can’t do on their own and are beyond what is designed or scripted for them. The entire creation of Universe commences with Parabrahma or Virat-Swaroop, stabilizes for a while on his wish and finally subjected to destruction as and when he desires it to be recreated again and again, era after era. However, none of the trinity intervene or interfere in the work of others except the Parabrahma or Virat-Swaroop streamlines the process as and when it affects the system. The concept of checks and balances between trinity has been to accept the other as supreme in their respective arena as well as convince when required.

Drawing a parallel to this Trinity arrangement of our sacred Hindu Mythology to Indian democracy, the Executive, Judiciary, Legislature which are the Trinity that shape the destiny of our great nation, are in a way equivalent to them conceptually. Our Constitution clearly defined the roles of these three institutions. There are several measures enshrined in the Constitution so that none of the Trinity transgresses on other’s territory. These three Institutions are expected to adhere to checks and balances so that none could exceed its laid down limits.

Several eyebrows are raised on the critical observations and comments made by the Courts on the public policies and decisions taken by the government and on the day-to-day governance in the recent past. Specific mention needs to be made with reference to the state government handling of the Corona Pandemic, tests, health care, treatment etc. Many doctors, officials, staff serving on the ground expressed the view that, the Court, if need be, can constitute an experts committee (Amicus curiae) and ask the Committee to inquire and submit its report on the matter, instead of summoning the senior officials to the court. The summons of this kind is forcing the officials to leave their basic and committed duties and run around the courts for hearings time and again. This has been hampering the actual job-chart that they are supposed to deliver, which the courts also expect them to do.

Our Constitution, a plethora of Supreme Court verdicts all these decades have time and again defined the roles of the Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature. In a number of cases, the Apex Court held that the Judiciary should limit itself to its basic role of governing the Constitution and ensure that the decisions, policies taken by the governments are not violative of the Constitution. If the courts start interfering in the day-to-day administration, the administration will collapse and it is not good for the democracy or its people.

Several legal luminaries say that the faith is reposed on the Judiciary only when the Judiciary recognise its limits. Courts may interfere in public administration in good faith, but, If the courts step outside the area of their institutional competence, the government may bounce back by way of legislative action to circumvent the jurisdiction of the courts in any matter that comes in the way of Good Governance. Such a step would not only undermine the rule of law but also highly undesirable for the frame work and spirit of the Constitution. But what and where is the remedy?

Striking down a Government Order (GO) or a policy of Government just because there is a variation or contradiction or procedural mistake is avoidable. Life is sometimes contradiction and even consistency is not always a virtue.

The function of the Judiciary is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that executive authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Interference with day-to-day policy, governance and administration much to the discomfort of executive may be avoided.

The Government in power which is the real executive occupies the position because of people mandate for a period of five years and it is its bounden duty and responsibility to fulfil the needs of the people. If they fail, they will lose the seat. For example, if there is a deviation in tackling Corona Pandemic, it could be well tackled or handled by the Judiciary by way of appointing an expert committee and study on the field rather summoning the concerned officers again and again to courts.

 

It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people’s fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution.

 

There are several judgments, verdicts by the Honourable Courts on the limitation of the judicial scrutiny. In such a case, will it be wrong to assume that the Judiciary will act judiciously while rendering justice? It is in this context and background it is opt to compare the roles played by the Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswer!

With