Right to Reject or rejecting the ‘Right’ ?

The Supreme Court of India (27th September 2013, Friday) gave the verdict that if a person is not allowed to cast negative votes in an election, it would "defeat" the rights of the citizens as ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution and passed an order to the Election Commission of India, asking it to include the "none of the above (NOTA)" option in voting machines and ballot papers to ensure a vibrant democracy.

The bench gave the verdict on the reason that the "Article 19 guarantees all individuals the right to speak, criticise, and disagree on a particular issue. It stands on the spirit of tolerance and allows people to have diverse views, ideas and ideologies. Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 ie, the right to liberty".

Unfortunately, the interpretation of Article 19 in conjunction with Article 21 of the Constitution of India by a bench of Supreme Court of India is nothing but the failure to comprehend the essence of the constitutional provisions and the very political process that brought about the constitution itself.

It has to be punctuated that the Indian Constitution is not airlifted from moon or mars, rather have been created by the political process that the nation experienced during the first half of the last century. It is to be accentuated that the constitution is the product of the endless and ceaseless agitations and political fights waged under the leadership of various political parties and trade unions ‘across time and regions’ and not the gift of anybody nor did it emanate from the revelation of any jurist or any so called legal luminary! After all, law is not a fundamental branch of knowledge but only an application of the theoretical concepts of political science, economics and other fundamental streams of social science!

Analysing the substantive questions raised by the verdict, it is quite translucent that the bench has not been motivated by the essence of and the insight provided by, the constitution. If the "right to reject all candidates" is the true embodiment of Articles 19 and 21 which give a citizen the right to criticise, disagree and freedom of expression, that very right should be made equally available to reject that very "right to reject all the candidates" itself along with all the other candidates! If that is the essence of these articles then the sequence repeats infinitely and the so called expression of disagreement will be fulfilled no more than asymptotically!

Apart from that, how does the exercise of "right to reject all the candidates" characterise and epitomise the ‘right to criticise and disagree or the right to freedom of speech and expression’? If anybody disagrees with any or all the candidates or wants to express, such very disagreement/expression is manifested through his candidature and not by any other behaviour. It is only in this manner that one individual can demonstrate the disagreement or exercise the freedom of expression. Exercising any other option as like the one suggested by the court will not amount to the demonstration of any disagreement or the articulation of any freedom of expression against any of the candidates in the fray but only add up to the rejection of the election process and eventually the political process and the constitution itself! Hence, the verdict of the supreme court, if implemented will only result in the de-politicisation of the nation building exercise and its eventual corporatisation which needs to be trounced at the very earliest.

The suggested reading material:

Paul Krugman, “A Country is not a Company”, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1996 (Page 40-51).