[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: A note to the Chief Justice of India



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I reall don't know whether the CJ of India will take any decision on ur
appeal without a writ application being filed in that behalf. The
appropriate forum would be the a High Court undr Art. 226. The Supreme Court
can only hear the matter on appeal since the matter is not under Art 32. Of
course, the CJ can take ur message as a write application and take up the
matter, but I rather doubt it in view of its powers and limitations under
Art. 32. The proper thing to would be to file a writ petition in the Gauhati
High Court under Art. 226. Am prepared to be of assitance in this regard.

>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:28:56 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok" <sanjeev@sabhlokcity.com>
>To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>Subject: A note to the Chief Justice of India
>Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is a copy of my recent mail to the Chief Justice of India. Grateful
>for comments, if any. SS
>
>To,     The Chief Justice of India,
>     Supreme Court
>     New Delhi
>
>Sub :      Constitutional validity of Section 29A(5) of the Representation
of
>trhe      People Act, 1951
>
>Sir,
>
>       I would like to bring a matter to your kind notice which has been
>exercising my attention for sometime. This relates to the requirement under
>Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(copy
>enclosed), that political parties, in order to be registered with the
>Election Commission of India, are required to declare not only their
>allegiance to the Constitution of India, but in particular to the principle
>of socialism.
>     As a student of Political Economy, having recently completed a
mid-career
>Ph.D. in Economics, I understand that socialism represents merely one
>particular economic perspective on social policy. In other words, there are
>a multitude of principles of ordering an economy among which socialism is
>just one. Indeed, in many discourses such as those of Hayek, socialism
>violates democracy the way we commonly mean it, and promotes fascism.
>     The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression under
Article
>19(1)(a). Freedom to expression necessarily subsumes the freedoms to think
>and to research for without the latter the former cannot exist. In
>particular, one of the most important freedoms that a citizen of India can
>have is to think about Economics as an academic discipline, to carry out
>comparative analyses between socialism and other systems, and to arrive at
>certain conclusions on economic ordering that might or might not be
>compatible with socialism.
>       Therefore, Section 29A(5) of the ROP Act, 1951, which compromises
>this basic freedom very severely, and compels everyone in the country to
>abide by just one of the many economic principles of social ordering is, I
>believe, a major violation of Article 19(1)(a). Such compulsion on the
>economic ideology of political parties at the time of registration by the
>Election Commission deprives me as a citizen of legitimate choice over an
>array of political parties across the spectrum of economic ideology, and
>coerces me to vote only to the "Left" of this spectrum. Indeed, the
>situation is complicated by many parties now advocating non-socialist
>policies such as liberalization of the economy while paying "official" lip
>service to socialism as required by the aforesaid Act. To keep the record
>straight, and to not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, we
>should not require any coercion on economic thought at all.
>       I would request you to consider this matter and if necessary to
>declare the above article unconstitutional.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
>Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------




------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------