DailyPost 2663
DECISIONS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, PROVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY!
Can neutrality be expected out of a few critical constitutional positions; Speakers and Governors, given the way they are sourced? If you follow the public outpouring of these constitutional functionaries, each one when suspected, they fight valiant battles to prove the constitutionality of every action of theirs. Constitutionality comes into question, more often than not, when the action taken by these functionaries is suspect, which borders on the lack of neutrality, of the concerned person. Suffice to say even if you are found wanting on the legal /constitutional expertise, while you adorn these posts, there are any number of experts to help you.
In such circumstances, you will rarely go wrong. The issue is whether you want to use their expertise. At times the constitutional authorities look for experts who are amenable. To stretch this point a little further, they would be looking for legal eagles who can prove their decisions right constitutionally, however nebulous it might be. The loop of the self-serving game closes its own loop, as most of the times they don’t have to prove it to an “ independent anybody.” When it becomes so blatant, that it hits the political opponent’s existence, they go to the courts. Having proven constitutionally amongst themselves, the purpose is served. In the court’s cobweb of Indian constitutionality, mostly they find their way.
Time is always has always been in favour of the ones who have used these constitutional authorities for their vested political interests. Having the decision in your favour and being able to delay judicial scrutiny, works like a shot in the arm. Lots of things are proven constitutionally because of the passage of time. It would have already served the purpose. Once the ends are met and the relevant time is over then any judicial scrutiny of no use. Functionally, infructuous you may call. It might just serve the purpose of technical legality. When an unconstitutional government in a state can continue for a long-time awaiting court’s verdict and speaker’s decision, then it surely aids the practice of taking any politically audacious vested decision and then prove it by skewed constitutionality.
Neutrality is a virtue which in missing in the Indian political space, but you have to keep vouching for it, because there is no way out, you have to keep repeating an anthem, which is certainly not your own. Can political DNA change, with just being seated in a constitutional position and that position too, an outcome of political loyalty. How can a system, however puritan it might be, expect this sort of a transformational change, just with the passage of one official order. The complexity does not end here, any elevation in the constitutional position hierarchy will happen once again only through political loyalty. Then how can the outcome be any different from the ones we see.
NEUTRALITY IS NOT A PART OF OUR POLITICAL DNA.
Sanjay Sahay