New Delhi: Democracy will be fructified only when elections, day to day political discourse, criticisms and voicing of protests take place beyond utilising the right to change ruler, said Chief Justice of India NV Ramana.
The mere exercise of people's franchise to vote could not guarantee the end of tyranny unless a productive political discourse and an atmosphere to raise voice against the shortfalls of the government prevails in the country, said Justice Ramana quoting legal scholar Julius Stone.
While delivering a virtual lecture on the 'Rule of Law' at the 17th Justice P D Desai Memorial Trust lecture, organised by the Praleen Trust, Justice Ramana highlighted the importance of the "elections, day-to-day political discourses, criticisms and voicing of protests" to remain intact as an integral part of the democratic process.
He also reminded the judges that they should not be carried away by the notions being created on social media or other public platforms as an extension of public opinion and their judgements should not be the reflections of what is being cooked up on the public platforms.
Judges cannot live in ivory castles only to act on the noises amplified on social media that need not be right and what the majority believes in, he added. The public has been exercising their right to choose who should govern them since independence and it is now up to those who wear the garb of power to ponder whether they are up to the benchmark laid down in the Constitution.
Justice Ramana also stated the necessity of upholding the independence of the judiciary from political and executive interference in order to safeguard the sanctity of the law lest the law should become illusory.
The judiciary should ensure that it does not fall prey to the pressure either from the legislatures or from media while delivering its duty-bound to the Constitution and the verdicts should be not based on media trial to guarantee the public the independence of judiciary against all external pressure, he said.
However, he also did not want the judiciary to dissociate itself from social media, stating that a discourse on 'how social media trends should not affect the disposition of justice' should occur. In any case, the media trial should not be a guiding mechanism in dealing with cases, Justice Ramana said.
Pointing to the pandemic crisis the country is witnessing, Justice Ramana said that the unprecedented crisis in the form of COVID puts the country in a situation to introspect whether the rule of law was successful in protecting people or how far the law extended its power to the welfare of all people of the country.
Calling the pandemic a kind of curtain raiser that shed light on the inadequacies of the state system to an expected larger crisis in the future, the CJI said it should be a time to test where the rule of law failed and how it should have been utilised to prevent any future disasters.
Justice Ramana also underlined the importance of public awareness of the law for its better utilisation and the judiciary's smooth functioning. To this extent, he emphasised the principles of the rule of law should be followed.
The principles of the rule of law emphasise that the laws must be clear and accessible, they should be worded in simple, unambiguous language and the public should be given the right to participate in the creation and refinement of law, said he.
It is only when the rules are made fathomable they can be expected to be obeyed by the public and therefore the laws should not take any kind of secretive nature, he said. The rules should be simply worded so that even a layman could understand and act accordingly, he added.
The people should also be made part of the creation and refinement of laws that regulate their behaviour, and through the elections, the Constitution gives its citizen the right to take part in the laws making process, said.
He also noted from the British narrative of the laws that are "Rule by Law" instead of "Rule of Law" to imply that the laws would remain just words unless they carry the power to deliver ideals of justice and equity. Though the unjust law could command the obedience of some sections of the society to the detriment of others, it will not have the same moral legitimacy as of a 'just law', added Justice Ramana.