Deficit in democracy; Constitution under challenge: Opposition's VP pick B Sudershan Reddy
New Delhi (PTI): Opposition vice presidential candidate B Sudershan Reddy on Saturday said there is a "deficit in democracy" in the country and the Constitution is "under challenge" as he pledged to defend and protect it.
In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with PTI, Reddy dwelt on a range of issues -- from how his candidature came about, the debate on the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble to the Constitution and to Union Home Minister Amit Shah's accusation that he supported Naxalism.
Calling himself a liberal constitutional democrat, the Opposition's nominee for the vice presidential election said he does not subscribe to the RSS ideology and he is far away from it.
He said disruptions in Parliament were essential in a democracy, but cautioned that they must not become an integral part of the democratic process.
Reddy also sought to downplay the debate on the vice presidential election emerging as a "South versus South" contest, saying both he and NDA nominee C P Radhakrishnan were citizens of one country but lamented that the country's "polity stands fractured", leading to this contest.
He talked about bringing back all black money stashed abroad, asserting that the nation's wealth must come back and said it was "work still in progress".
The former Supreme Court judge said earlier there was a talk of "deficit economy", but now there is a "deficit in democracy", and claimed that though India continues to be a constitutional democracy, it is "under strain".
He, however, welcomed the debate on whether the Constitution is under attack.
Reddy said democracy is less about a clash between individuals and more about a clash between ideas, and wished ties between the government and the Opposition were better.
A former chief justice of the Gauhati High Court, the Opposition's vice presidential nominee said his "journey of upholding the Constitution continues, ultimately culminating in, if given an opportunity, to protect and defend the Constitution".
"All through my life, I was upholding the Constitution. If you give me an opportunity to serve this country, I will try to defend and protect the Constitution of India, which undoubtedly is coming under challenge. The message is, there is still the possibility of a reasonably good and healthy debate amongst ourselves in this country," he said.
Reddy said he upheld the Constitution primarily as a judge in the past. "So, this journey is nothing new to me," he said.
His unanimous candidature by the Opposition was a matter of honour for him, he said.
"First, it represents diversity. Secondly, the unanimous choice. Thirdly, in terms of voting strength, if you make an analysis, they represent more than 63-64 per cent of the population. What else could be an honour," he said.
On the argument that top constitutional posts should be filled by consensus reflecting national unity, he said, "I wish there could have been a consensus. But you know, the polity as it stands is a fractured one. In the circumstances, perhaps it is inevitable, leading to this contest."
Reddy talked stressed that democracy in India is under strain.
"Earlier, we used to talk about a deficit economy, (now) there is a deficit in democracy. I do not say that India is no longer a democratic country. I don't subscribe to that. We still continue to be a constitutional democracy, but under strain," he said.
Explaining his point, he noted that earlier, the treasury and opposition benches used to coordinate on many national issues. "Unfortunately, we don't find that today," he said.
The VP election is not a contest between him and Radhakrishnan, but a contest representing "two different ideologies".
"... Here is a person, a quintessential RSS man... So far as I am concerned, I do not subscribe to that ideology and I am far, far, far, far away from it. I am essentially a liberal constitutional democrat. This is the area or rather the arena for the contest where the fight goes on," he said.
Reddy also talked about the disruption of Parliament's business. Both Houses of Parliament witnessed an extraordinary ruckus for a major part of the recently finished Monsoon session.
He quoted former BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who said "disruption also is a legitimate political activity and a parliamentary practice" to champion disruption as a form of dissent.
"Disruption is nothing but one form of dissent. If you are not allowed to speak or express your views, this is one form of speaking. That's how I look at the disruption. Not that I wish that disruption should become an essential and an integral part of democratic process," Reddy said.
On Amit Shah's attack on him over the Salwa Judum verdict, Reddy said, "I do not wish to join an issue directly with the Honourable Home Minister of India, whose constitutional duty and obligation is to protect the life, liberty and property of every citizen, irrespective of ideological differences. Secondly, I have authored the judgment. The judgment is not mine, the judgment is of the Supreme Court."
In December 2011, Reddy, as a judge of the Supreme Court, ruled that using tribal youths as Special Police Officers -- whether called 'Koya Commandos' or Salwa Judum -- in the fight against Maoist insurgents was illegal and unconstitutional and ordered that they be immediately disarmed.
He wished Shah read the judgment, which runs up to 40 pages. "If he had read the judgment, perhaps he would not have made that comment. That's all I say and leave it there... There must be decency in the debate," he asserted.
He also threw his weight behind the caste survey, saying one has to first find out the percentage of those who need to be succoured and policies framed accordingly to empower them.
Reddy headed the expert panel which conducted the survey and revealed that 84.6% of the population in Telangana belonged to the backward classes.
"The Constitution doesn't speak about caste. If you have to classify a group together with some people as the backward classes, you have to find out their caste, their socio-economic conditions, their way of living, their access to power and the way they are recognised by the society. Caste survey has to be done," he said, adding that the Government of India has now included it in the Census.
According to Reddy, the Constitution is an integral one and it means conventions and morality.
"There are various steps taken by the government in power, making one feel legitimately that it is coming under challenge," he said, welcoming the debate that the Constitution is under attack and saying all should participate in it and express their opinion.
On the controversy over the inclusion of 'socialist', 'secular' in the Preamble, he said, according to him, the expressions have made things explicit, which is otherwise in-built in the provisions of the Constitution.
"Both the words which are made explicit, the ideas contained in the Constitution are welcome. It is true that the amendment came, that is 42nd Amendment, when the Emergency was invoked.
"But, one must remember, the Jana Sangh which formed the government later, unanimously approved it. Therefore, one fails to understand with what intention that debate is being triggered," he said.
On different narratives on Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and BR Ambedkar, Reddy said if you read the three superficially, some misconceptions and misunderstandings come to mind.
"Quintessentially, all three of them were great democrats, republicans and (they) believed in the ethics and morals of the Constitution. I do not think it would be in the interest of the nation to divide them into three segments. And one supporting and the other opposing and creating a false narrative is not in the nation's interest," he stressed.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
2019 mud attack on engineer: Maharashtra court sentences BJP minister Nitesh Rane to one-month jail
Mumbai (PTI): A court in Sindhudurg on Monday convicted Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane in a 2019 case of pouring mud on an NHAI engineer when he was in opposition, and sentenced him to one-month imprisonment, noting that lawmakers are not supposed to take the law into their hands.
Later, the court suspended Rane's sentence, allowing him time to appeal before a higher court, while acquitting 29 other accused in the case.
"Even though Rane's intention was to raise a voice against the poor quality of work and inconvenience faced by the people, he was not supposed to humiliate or insult a public servant in public," additional sessions court judge V S Deshmukh stated.
"If such incidents continue to occur, public servants would not be able to discharge their duties with dignity," the judge noted.
ALSO READ: 19-yr-old woman found hanging from tree in UP village; juvenile held
Calling the act "abuse of power", the court held that "it is the demand of time to curb such tendency".
Rane, a son of former Union minister Narayan Rane, was among 30 people charged under various offences, including rioting, assault to deter a public servant, and criminal conspiracy. He was in Congress when the incident occurred.
All the accused, including Nitesh Rane, were acquitted of these offences, as the court found insufficient evidence to support most of these claims.
However, the court found Nitesh Rane guilty of an offence under section 504 (intentional insult meant to provoke a breach of public peace) and sentenced him to one month's jail.
Rane, then a Congress MLA, had called the Sub-Divisional Engineer of the National Highway Authority, Prakash Shedekar, to a bridge over the Gad river in Kankavli on July 4, 2019, for inspecting the work to widen the Mumbai-Goa Highway.
According to the prosecution, Nitesh Rane and his followers, frustrated by the poor quality of the roadwork and waterlogging, confronted the engineer. They poured muddy water on Shedekar and forced him to walk through slush in public.
The court, after perusing the evidence on record, noted that the informant (victim) was holding a high post in the National Highway Authority.
"Despite that, he was made to walk through the muddy water in public. It would have certainly humiliated and insulted him," the court remarked.
The judge held that Rane compelling Shedekar to walk through the muddy water "was nothing but an intentional insult to the informant," and provocation which will cause him to break the public peace.
