Striking facts

The propensity of the M. Karunanidhi government to play the role of the opposition even when it is required to perform the function of the executive — both in Tamil Nadu and at the Centre — has landed it in trouble on more than one occasion in the recent past. The DMK’s decision to call for a Tamil Nadu bandh on Monday to demand that the Sethusamudram project be completed early was wholly misconceived. Upping the ante on the project at this sensitive juncture when the issue is before the court neither expedites the project nor enhances DMK’s image as a responsible party of governance.

The Supreme Court’s ruling against the bandh — which came after an extraordinary session on Sunday — was of a piece with earlier verdicts on bandhs. After all, the Supreme Court had upheld the Kerala High Court’s landmark judgment of 1997, which had observed that organisers of bandhs ended up trampling on the constitutional rights of citizens. In fact, Sunday’s order echoed the earlier argument when it set down that public rights are superior to the rights of individual political parties. This order, taken in concert with the apex court’s subsequent observations on Monday, demonstrates two things. One, the Supreme Court’s great concern that the rule of law and the maintenance of order prevails at all times; two, that it will exhibit the necessary zeal to ensure that its orders are taken with the necessary seriousness.

While we support the Supreme Court’s stance that the rule of law must prevail and agree that it is the responsibility of the executive to ensure that it does, there is a disconcerting tone in the court’s observations on Monday — indicating that the Karunanidhi government could invite dismissal. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the DMK government is found to be in breach of the court’s ruling on the bandh. Let’s also grant that such a breach would have been extremely serious because securing citizens’ rights is among the very first duties of a government. But even when guilty in this fashion in the eyes of the court, a democratically elected state government shouldn’t invite intimations of dismissal from the bench. Dismissing an elected government in a democracy is a grave matter, as Supreme Court judgments have told us. Courts, least of all, cannot be seen to be implying otherwise.