COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

The new era Why cosy up      with Taiwan? Target Saddam Kerala's cup of woes The winds of change Advantage Jayalalithaa Is anyone in charge      in Islamabad?

Four decisions for the future

In the space of barely a fortnight, the Supreme Court has made, or shall soon make, four important decisions.

First, it delivered judgment on the fate of the so-called 'minority' educational institutions.

Second, it forced a halt to the increasing decibel levels as Karnataka and Tamil Nadu squared off over the Kaveri.

Third, it gave Narendra Modi an unexpected (and unwanted) reprieve as it offered the President its opinion on the powers of the Election Commission.

And now, it is all set to settle the fate of Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.

Whatever the immediate cause for each of these coming to the attention of the apex court, the implications of Their Lordships' decisions will continue to echo for a long time. Each one, therefore, bears a closer look.

The Supreme Court has adopted the commonsense 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' approach to the vexed issue of 'minority' institutions. They are free to do as they want --- up to the point where they begin taking money from the government. If you take its cash, said the Supreme Court, then you must also accept its policies. Further, 'minorities' can no longer define themselves; that decision shall be taken on a state-by-state basis by the respective governments.

This has not gone down well with many people. For instance, Mulayam Singh Yadav used to go around distributing largesse to several institutions when he was chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. How many of those shall now come under the Uttar Pradesh government's supervision?

Next, 'minorities' is normally used as a code word for religious minorities in India. But there are other groups, such as linguistic sub-groups. If a school or a college in Delhi that is run by, say, the Tamil Educational Society accepts a grant from the Government of Delhi, must it then accept its policies too? Let us say that the school authorities interpret the 'three language formula' as English, Tamil, and Sanskrit. The norm in Delhi is English, Hindi, and Sanskrit. Which policy shall prevail? (This is a hypothetical example; as far as I know there is no body called the Tamil Educational Society in Delhi.)

Let us move on to the issue of sharing river waters. The Supreme Court did more than force Karnataka to supply Tamil Nadu with water; looking beyond, it has asked the Union government to prepare a plan to connect every major river in India. This has long been a dream project for several people, but it raises a host of questions.

First, some major rivers are not exclusively Indian property, but are shared with other nations. For instance, there is a treaty on sharing the waters of the Ganga with Bangladesh. How will Dacca react if the water is suddenly diverted southward before it reaches Farakka?

Second, what are the environmental costs of such a massive undertaking? We are talking about cutting vast swathes across central India, territory that is still home to virgin forests and to several protected tribal communities. It is possible that the ultimate costs will be worth it, but there should be some studies done before the first piece of earth is cut. (I admit to a certain amount of scepticism when it comes to hydro-projects; there seems to be far too much emphasis on construction, far too little on conservation. And, quite frankly, crop patterns border on the ridiculous when we see farmers in the Kaveri delta trying to grow sugarcane!)

Let us now move on to the question of the Election Commission's powers. This was referred to the apex court for clarification by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution; technically, therefore, it does not have the same weight as an actual ruling under Article 141. But any opinion of the Supreme Court must be taken seriously.

Their Lordships have offered a clarification that has given something to everyone, but left nobody completely sated. The Election Commission has been confirmed as the primary authority for the timing and conduct of polls. But the rider came in the clarification that the six-month rule --- that ministers must meet the responsible House at least once every six months --- does not apply to a House that has been dissolved.

So, consider this scenario: a chief minister proves his command by getting the Budget passed. He then demands, and gets, a dissolution. Normally, elections would have to be held within six months. But he contrives to create a scenario where the Election Commission concludes that the atmosphere isn't suitable. It postpones polls for six more months (as the Supreme Court has given it the authority to do). The Union government refuses to put the state under President's rule. The unscrupulous chief minister is therefore free to do as he chooses for 12 months!

Narendra Modi wanted early polls, so the above doesn't apply to him. But it is perfectly possible that another man won't like early polls. How democratic is it to let a chief minister continue without the supervision of the relevant legislature?

And, finally, there is Jayalalithaa. The old TANSI land-grab case is now before the Supreme Court. It is anybody's case as to how Their Lordships shall rule. If she is acquitted, well and good. But if she is not, can she continue in office? In fact, can anyone found guilty by the apex court hold public office?

As I said, the four cases that came up before the Supreme Court were important in themselves. But the rulings/opinions offered by Their Lordships will continue to echo long after the curtains have fallen on the political actors of today.

T V R Shenoy