Monday, 21 November 2016

A PIL against Prime Minister Narendra Modi




(Beyond Satire)


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION AGAINST PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI 

(1) AAM AADMI PARTY                                                           PETITIONERS          (2) BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY                  THROUGH EMINENT LAWYERS
(3) COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
(4) COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (M)
(5) INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
(6) SAMAJWADI PARTY
(7) TRINAMUL CONGRESS
(8) SHIV SENA &
(9) OTHERS
VERSUS
NARENDRA MODI, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA                   RESPONDENT                        
IN THE MATTER OF PREAMBLE TO THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 29 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The Petitioners, legally constituted and recognised mainstream political parties of India representing majority of the citizens of India, beg to draw the attention of the highest court of justice in the country to certain important provisions of the Constitution of India:

(a)   The Preamble, which is an integral part of the Constitution of India, says that the people of this country constituted “India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. 

(b)  The Constitution secures to all its citizens, inter alia, “JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity.” 

(c)   Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the States from denying “to any person equality before the law or the equal opportunity of the laws within the territory of India.” 

(d)  Article 19 protects certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. and grants all citizens the right, inter alia, to form associations or unions.

     (e)  Article 29 protects the right of the minorities to conserve their    language, script or culture.

2. The Petitioners, except Petitioner No. 8, are in opposition at the Centre but are either in power or in opposition in the States/Union Territories of India.
3. In this era of coalition with large number of mainstream political parties, no single party, not even the party that has formed a government and provided the present Prime Minister, can claim to represent the majority of the country’s citizens.
4. It is the responsibility of every political party (whether in power or in opposition), every political leader and every citizen of the country to ensure that the government of the day functions in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
5. Notwithstanding their political and ideological differences and competition among themselves for political space, the Petitioners firmly believe that the single most important factor that can keep India a socialist, secular and democratic republic and maintain the country’s sovereignty and integrity is level playing, availability of equal opportunity to all the stakeholders. No single party should to try to take credit for doing everything for the country. Rather, in a spirit of mutual cooperation, should give opportunity to all the parties to serve the poor of the country.
6. The Petitioners not just preach what they bedlieve. In fact they have been practising their faith in the interest of the socialist, secular and democratic character of the Republic, in the interest of the poor and downtrodden people of this country.
7.  The claim of the Petitioners is proven by their track record. To give a few examples:
(a) The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Petitioner No. 1, was founded by a person who is a symbol of simple living and high pitched oratory (even after a surgical strike on his tongue, literally) to eradicate corruption from the public life and to make politics clean. Having set the goal and shown the means to achieve the goal, the party has graciously left it to other political parties to complete the task.
(b) The ultimate objective of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Petitioner No. 2, is to empower the Dalits of the society. However, in order to give opportunity to other parties to achieve that goal, the party supremo has restricted empowerment to herself and to her kins and friends. Her public appearance in designer dress wearing heavy gold and diamond jewellery, holding a designer purse in hand and surrounded by heavily-armed commandoes, is the sample of what empowerment means. Her statues are inspiring millions of people.
(c) Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 believe in eradication of poverty and creation  of classless society. However, even after remaining in power in West Bengal for more than three decades, they deliberately did not achieve their objective because they did not want to deprive others of the opportunity and credit.
(d) Petitioner No. 5, the oldest political party of the country that fought for freedom under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, had declared even before independence that removal of poverty was the next goal. Despite reiterating its commitment to remove of poverty at the time of each and every election, the party has scrupulously avoided achieving the goal and has been liberal enough to give opportunity to all other political parties to follow it.
(e) The Samajwadi Party, Petitioner No. 6, was founded by Netaji Mulayam Singh, the great follower of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, to transform our poor traditional society into a society of rich socialists. He too has transformed only his extended family and friends. He too presents himself and his beneficiaries as samples of what socialism can achieve. He has shown the path which other have to follow.
(f) The firebrand leader and founder of  the Trinamul Congress, Petitioner No. 7, is  another symbol of simple living and high pitched oratory. She has made her party rich and powerful with the help of her loyal friends so that she can serve the people of West Bengal for a long time. She is concentrating on the minorities so that her successors have opportunity to do something for the majority.  
(g) Petitioner No. 8, led by the second generation of protectors of the interest of local people, inspires others to take care of local interest in their respective states.
8.  All the Petitioners believe in transparency and clean politics and have been promising to achieve the objectives and will continue to promise in future. Any action beyond promises may prove to be disastrous to the entire constitutional system. This underwritten sacred code of conduct is product of mutual understanding and has been faithfully  practised by the Petitioners and others.
9.  The Petitioners’ motto is ‘charity begins at home” and they have been asking people to have patience because “Rome was not built in a day’.
10. The Petitioners believe in “participative democracy”. Whenever any big programme is taken up by any party in power, all the stakeholders should be given opportunity to participate. 
11. Unfortunately, since mid-2014 the Central Government is headed by the Respondent who is a person who does not care for the healthy democratic traditions of this great country. In flagrant violation of the unwritten code of conduct, he seems to be in tearing hurry to initiate and complete several programmes during his tenure. The Petitioners’ fear is that he does not want to give other stakeholders any opportunity to serve the country the way they have been doing.
12. The Petitioners’ fear is neither imaginary nor baseless. Just consider how many programmes the Respondent has taken up within a short time and is hurriedly implementing: “Make in India”, “Swachh Bharat”, “Jan Dhan Yojna”, “Smart Cities”, “Digital India”, “Bullet Trains”, “Give up Subsidised LPG”, “Save Girl Child”, etc. etc.
13.  The Petitioners patiently tolerated the Respondent’s overreach but are deeply aggrieved that he does not believe in “participative democracy” as is evident from two major actions taken by him unilaterally, without even giving any prior hint to them.
14. The first action is described as “Surgical Strike” in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK ). Ours being a participative democracy, the Respondent should have discussed the need for such an action in the Parliament and should have sent the Petitioners’ representatives along with the armed forces to convince them that it was actually a surgical strike and to give the Petitioners an opportunity to boost the morale of the army. If it was absolutely necessary to carry out the strike in secrecy, the Respondent should have held consultation in secrecy.
15.  Even more objectionable is what is being wrongly described as “Surgical Strike on Black Money”. Without caring for the stockholders like Petitioners, the Respondent made the existing currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 useless pieces of paper unless exchanged with newly printed currency notes or deposited in bank accounts.
16.  The Petitioners are deeply hurt and aggrieved that such an important decision was taken without any discussion in the Parliament. If the Parliament was not in session, a special session should have been convened. If that was also not possible, the Respondent should have taken the Petitioners into confidence and given them time to put their house in order. Had the Respondent done so, today the Petitioners would have been  standing with the Respondent and the government he heads and would have been appealing to the people to cooperate.
17.  By not doing anything like that, the Respondent has in fact carried out “Surgical Strike the Very Foundation of Democracy”. He has done so just when the Petitioners are preparing for elections in various states.
18.  It is well known that the Petitioners had worked very hard to collect materials, black as well as white, from several sources  to build a strong foundation. Within a few months the common people will start leading normal life but it will take decades to repair the damaged foundation of our parliamentary democracy. Our democratic system will suffer for a long time because when the foundation is damaged, the superstructure is bound to collapse. The Respondent has not only crippled the Petitioners, he has ensured that they, the Petitioners, should not be able to serve the people
19. The Petitioners apprehend that unless restrained by the highest court of justice of the land, the Respondent will continue to violate the code of conduct. His next move may be may be to grab all the real estate acquired by the Petitioners and their supporters.
30. Briefly, democracy as being practised in this country since independence is facing serious threat from ‘Modicracy’

Prayer

The Respondent should be restrained from taking any major decision in violation of the code of conduct developed on the basis of mutual understanding and from doing further damage to the basic structure of the constitutional system which guarantees equality of status and opportunity. The highest court of justice is requested to ensure level playing, to save our democracy from “Modicracy’.

(Signed by Petitioners)


(Note: I have managed to obtain a copy of the Draft which is under discussion of the Petitioners. They will sign the petition and the affidavit once they have sorted out their differences.                                     Devendra Narain, November 22, 2016.)

Please share with your friends, if you like it. 

If want to read a serious analysis of demonetisation, here are links If link does not work, copy and paste on Google)



  Cost-benefit analysis Part I:
http://naraindevendra.blogspot.com/2016/12/cost-benefit-analysis-of-demonetisation.html


  Cost-benefit analysis Part II: http://naraindevendra.blogspot.com/2016/12/cost-benefit-analysis-of-demonetisation_10.html