Make study of the Constitution compulsory for Indian lawmakers
The values and ideals cherished by the people of a country are enshrined in their Constitution. Similarly, dreams and aspirations of the citizenry of the world’s largest democracy can be seen in the Constitution of India. The smell of the blood of millions who lost their lives in the freedom struggle and the millions who suffered at the hands of the mighty British Empire can be heard. This brilliant work is the cornerstone of this great nation called India.
The president of India, as the head of state, takes the oath of defending the Constitution of India. The head of state can be impeached for the sole reason - violation of the Constitution of India. The Constitution in Part IV, i.e. titled Fundamental Duties, says it shall be the duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. All laws made in the country must be in tune with the Constitution. Any violation follows a consequence: striking down by the judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India in Keshavananda Bharati case has evolved the basic structure doctrine, which bars Parliament from altering the core principles of the “holy book” of Indian democracy.
Few days back, a responsible functionary of the Delhi government thundered: “Rajya Sabha has let down the entire country. Had the MPs in the Rajya Sabha passed the amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, this man (the convict) would have been in jail. But today he is walking out free.”
Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India states this on ex-post facto law. It simply means that a person may be convicted only for an act which was an offence at the time of committing the act. Similarly, Article 20 (2) of the Constitution bars “double jeopardy”. A person cannot be punished for the same offence twice. These provisions make it extremely clear that the juvenile in Nirbhaya case cannot be subjected to an enhanced punishment. The Constitution clearly protects him from being subjected to a jail term for the same offence twice. The provision is same in all civilised states of the world.
It makes things evident that the honourable functionary, whom I have quoted above, has never read the book which she’s to abide by and work according to its directions. The common man got carried away by the new eye-catching, but legally impossible, slogan.
Father of Indian legal education, Professor NR Madhava Menon, has written about an incident at the Kerala Legislative Assembly where he went to lecture on the Constitution for amateur law makers. One of them said to him during the course of lecture, “I do not know what the Constitution of India is; I will do what my party says”.
The MLA had entered office taking an oath expressing true faith and allegiance to the same book. These incidents showcase the urgent need to make none other than the lawmakers understand the “law” and also the importance of imparting legal education to any person drawing salary or remuneration from the state exchequer. Also, there is the need of introducing legal education in the school curriculum.
Famous jurist Lord Denning, in his address to the Society of Public Teachers of Law, expressed three purposes of legal education:
1. To show how legal rules have developed, the reasons underlying them and the nexus between legal and social history.
2. To extract the principles underlying the existing legal rules.
3. To point out the right road for future development.
The immediate reason for the Revolt of 1857 was a rumour. History is still unable to assert whether the content matter of the rumour was true. Whatever that be, damage was caused. Lack of information and knowledge is the major reason for people being carried away easily by feelgood slogans, unwarranted rumours and other forms of sensationalism.
We as a nation cannot leave majority of the people to remain “legally illiterate”. The demands for stopping the release of the juvenile convicted in the Delhi gang rape case stands as a live example.
God save this great nation!