The judiciary is hardly the instrument to dictate the form that interactions between different elements of civil society may assume
The judiciary is hardly the instrument to dictate the form that interactions between different elements of civil society may assume
The view adumbrated by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Thursday — it is not yet a judicial instruction or judgment as the matter is in the stages of early formality yet — that political parties in Uttar Pradesh refrain from organising caste rallies appears far from well-grounded.
It is wholly unclear on what law the view rests. Court orders need to be based on provisions of the law and the Constitution. It is, therefore, more likely than not that should the high court stick to its present view after giving due regard to the perspectives of the parties concerned (the state and the Union government) in due course, the Supreme Court will
have things to say that are not in accord with the high court’s interim instruction.
In that event the matter would die a natural death. But even preceding that, the observations of the high court are not likely to have any serious impact on political processes in UP. In order not to offend judicial sensitivities, political parties can easily address caste gatherings — if they are so inclined — by making out such assemblies are something else, for instance a community feast.
Aside from practical aspects such as these, the high court can be placed under scrutiny for disregarding the fact that political parties, like caste-affiliated gatherings, are diverse elements of civil society. As such, the judiciary is hardly the instrument to dictate the form that interactions between different elements of civil society may assume.
These forms are typically guided by impulses within society, and are part of the evolutionary process and autonomous inner transformations, quite distinct from change sought to be induced by executive fiat or judicial pronouncements. Courts of law come into the picture only when violence or hatred is sought to be engendered between communities and identity platforms bearing caste tags.
The deliberations of the high court in this instance doubtless spring from a higher instinct, but appear to be not well thought through. The authors appear to have been motivated by the ideal of India (or UP) acceding to a casteless ideal. But really, that ideal has meaning only when the propagation of caste identities (say, through a rally) is made a vehicle of discrimination against the poorer or deprived castes. The recent caste rally of UP Brahmins addressed by BSP leader Mayawati, or the mobilisation of intellectual sections (who, in UP, are typically upper caste) not long ago by SP leader Mulayam Singh Yadav to prepare for the next election, can hardly be called attempts to divide society. Basically, these were efforts to transmit a party’s specific messages to all sections.
