विदीर्ण मनःस्थिती: आधुनिक भारतातील न्यायव्यवस्थेचा विरोधाभास

भारत हा विविधतेत एकतेचं उदाहरण आहे. अनेक भाषा, संस्कृती, आणि प्रादेशिक भिन्नता असूनही आपण एकाच संविधानाखाली, एकाच गुन्हेगारी कायद्याखाली, एकाच न्यायिक प्रक्रियाखाली, आणि एकाच सर्वोच्च न्यायालयापासून खालच्या न्यायालयांपर्यंत एकसंध न्यायव्यवस्थेखाली कार्यरत आहोत. या एकसंध व्यवस्थेचा पाया आपल्या समाजाच्या एकात्मतेचं प्रतीक आहे. मात्र, जेव्हा या प्रणालींच्या अंमलबजावणीचा विचार केला जातो, तेव्हा निर्णयांमधील विसंगती आणि भेदभाव दिसून येतो. हा विरोधाभास ‘विदीर्ण मनःस्थिती’ अर्थात भग्न-मानसिकतेचा परिचय देतो.  

२१व्या शतकात, जिथे तंत्रज्ञान आणि जागतिक संवाद सहज शक्य आहे, तिथेच आपली कायद्याची अंमलबजावणी करणारी व्यवस्था आणि न्यायालये निर्णय घेताना अतिशय विसंगत वागणूक दाखवतात, हे चिंताजनक आहे. हा प्रश्न केवळ न्यायव्यवस्थेपुरता मर्यादित नसून राजकीय आणि प्रशासकीय नेतृत्व, बौद्धिकवर्ग, माध्यमं, आणि तरुण पिढीपर्यंत सर्वत्र पोहोचला आहे. या परिस्थितीचं एक जिवंत उदाहरण म्हणजे तेलुगू अभिनेता अल्लू अर्जुन आणि तथाकथित संत भोले बाबा यांचे प्रकरण.

अल्लू अर्जुन आणि भोले बाबा यांचा विरोधाभास

प्रकरण : अल्लू अर्जुन यांची अटक

तेलुगू अभिनेता अल्लू अर्जुन यांना त्यांच्या चित्रपटाच्या “पुष्पा २: द राईज” च्या प्रीमियरला झालेल्या चेंगराचेंगरीमध्ये एका महिलेचा मृत्यू झाल्यानंतर अटक करण्यात आली. या घटनेत त्यांच्यावर थेट जबाबदारी टाकली गेली. मात्र, तेलंगणा उच्च न्यायालयाने त्यांच्या अटकेच्या वैधतेवर प्रश्नचिन्ह उपस्थित केले.  

न्यायाधीश जुव्वडी श्रीदेवी यांनी नमूद केले:  “केवळ ते अभिनेते आहेत म्हणून त्यांचा स्वातंत्र्य हक्क हिरावून घेता येईल का? प्रत्येक माणसाला जगण्याचा आणि स्वातंत्र्याचा हक्क आहे. केवळ ते अभिनेते आहेत म्हणून त्यांच्याशी वेगळं वागवलं जाऊ शकत नाही.”

प्रकरण : भोले बाबा यांना मिळालेला अभय

याच्या नेमक्या उलट प्रकारात, उत्तर प्रदेशातील हातरस येथे तथाकथित संत भोले बाबा यांच्या सत्संगादरम्यान झालेल्या चेंगराचेंगरीत १२१ जणांचा मृत्यू झाला. या भीषण घटनेनंतरही भोले बाबा यांना ना अटक झाली, ना त्यांच्यावर जबाबदारी निश्चित करण्यात आली. उत्तर प्रदेश पोलिसांनी दाखल केलेल्या ३२०० पानी आरोपपत्रात देखील भोले बाबा यांचे नावसुद्धा  नाही!  

या विरोधाभासाचा अर्थ काय?

अल्लू अर्जुन यांना एका मृत्यूमुळे अटक केली जाते, तर १२१ मृत्यू घडवणाऱ्या भोले बाबांना कोणताही त्रास होत नाही. दोन्ही प्रकरणं समान कायद्याखाली येत असूनही असा फरक का? याचं उत्तर एका गोष्टीत आहे – “विदीर्ण मनःस्थिती”.  

भेदभावपूर्ण नव्यवस्था

हा विरोधाभास आपल्या न्यायप्रणालीतील काही मूलभूत त्रुटींवर प्रकाश टाकतो:  

 . प्रसारमाध्यमं आणि जनतेची मानसिकता

अल्लू अर्जुन सारख्या अभिनेत्यांना प्रसिद्धीमुळे त्वरित लक्ष्य केलं जातं, कारण माध्यमांना त्यांच्या बातम्या दाखवण्यात रस असतो. दुसरीकडे, भोले बाबा धार्मिक क्षेत्राशी संबंधित असल्यामुळे त्यांच्यावर कारवाई करणं राजकीय आणि सामाजिक दृष्टिकोनातून धोकादायक ठरू शकतं.  

. राजकीय हस्तक्षेप आणि प्रशासकीय दबाव

राजकीय नेते आणि प्रशासकीय अधिकारी धार्मिक नेत्यांना सोयीस्करपणे दुर्लक्ष करतात, कारण त्यांच्याकडे मोठा समर्थकवर्ग असतो. मात्र, सर्वसामन्यावर  कारवाई करताना अशा गोष्टींचा विचार केला जात नाही.  

. पोलिस  निष्क्रियता

तेलंगणा उच्च पोलिसांनी  अल्लू अर्जुन यांच्या अटकेची तत्परता दाखवली, पण हातरस प्रकरणात पोलिसांची  सक्रियता दिसली नाही. हे निवडक सक्रियतेचं उदाहरण असून पोलीस यंत्रणेच्या  असमानतेच्या मानसिकतेचे दर्शन घडवतं.  

विदीर्ण मनःस्थितीचे दूरगामी परिणाम

 . जनतेचा विश्वास गमावणे

जेव्हा कायदा भेदभावाने वापरला जातो, तेव्हा लोकांचा कायदा आणि सुव्यवस्था तसेच न्यायप्रणालीवरचा विश्वास उडतो. लोकांना कायदा हा न्याय देणारा नसून प्रभावशाली व्यक्तींना जपणारा वाटतो.  

 . दुहेरी मापदंडाची सवय

भोले बाबा यांसारख्या व्यक्तींना माफी मिळाल्याने अशा प्रकारांचा प्रसार होतो. या दुहेरी मापदंडामुळे कायद्याचा आदर कमी होतो.  

. सामाजिक प्रगतीला अडथळा

भेदभावपूर्ण न्यायामुळे समाजात विषमता वाढते. समानतेच्या तत्वांचा अभाव राहिल्याने सामाजिक सुधारणा मागे पडतात.  

काही मार्ग आहे का ?

 . संस्थात्मक स्वायत्तता वाढवणे

पोलीस आणि न्यायालयांना राजकीय हस्तक्षेपापासून मुक्त ठेवलं पाहिजे. त्यांच्या कार्यप्रणालीवर निगराणी ठेवणाऱ्या स्वायत्त यंत्रणा उभारल्या पाहिजेत.  

 . नैतिक नेतृत्वाची गरज

नेत्यांनी प्रामाणिक आणि नैतिक दृष्टिकोन बाळगला पाहिजे. त्यांना कोणत्याही परिस्थितीत भेदभाव टाळण्याचं भान ठेवावं लागेल.  

. सतर्क नागरिकांचा सहभाग

जागरूक नागरिक आणि माध्यमं हे भेदभावास तोंड देण्यासाठी सक्षम असावेत. प्रकरणं पारदर्शकपणे तपासण्यासाठी लोकांमध्ये जागरूकता निर्माण झाली पाहिजे.  

 . आत्मचिंतनाची सवय

शाळा, महाविद्यालयं, आणि माध्यमं यांच्यामार्फत तरुण पिढीला आत्मचिंतन करण्यास प्रवृत्त केलं पाहिजे.  

अल्लू अर्जुन आणि भोले बाबा यांची प्रकरणं हे केवळ कायद्याचं अपयश नाही तर आपल्या समाजाच्या विदीर्ण मनःस्थितीचं प्रतीक आहे. हे भग्न  विचार आपल्या एकसंध संविधानाचा अवमान करतात आणि त्याचं सार्थक साधण्यात अडथळा आणतात.  

जर भारताने प्रगतीशील समाज म्हणून उभं राहायचं असेल, तर कायदा आणि सुव्यवस्था तसेच न्यायव्यवस्थेतील या विदीर्ण मनःस्थितीला सामोरे जावं लागेल. न्याय हा कोणत्याही प्रकारच्या भेदभावाशिवाय, सर्वांसाठी समान लागू होईल, हे सुनिश्चित करण्याची आज सर्वाधिक गरज आहे. 

-महेश झगडे, IAS(rtd)

Standard

The King Voter:

Empowering Democracy through Constitutional Accountability

In the grand tapestry of democracy, the voter holds a position of paramount importance. Often overlooked amidst the political theatrics and maneuverings of leaders, the voter stands as the linchpin upon which the entire democratic edifice rests. In the Indian context, where democracy thrives amidst a diverse populace, the role of the voter is not merely that of a passive observer but akin to that of a sovereign. With the power to shape the destiny of the nation through the ballot box, the voter possesses a latent authority that can redefine the contours of governance. However, this authority often remains untapped, overshadowed by the dominance of political elites. It is within this realm that the concept of the “King Voter” emerges—a figure empowered to demand accountability and transparency from those in positions of power.

At the heart of India’s democratic framework lies the Constitution, a venerable document that delineates the rights and responsibilities of citizens and leaders alike. Within its hallowed pages, Articles 78 and 167 outline the duties of the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers respectively, concerning the communication of decisions and proposals to the President and Governors. These provisions, while essential for the smooth functioning of the government machinery, exhibit a notable omission—the absence of explicit mention of the electorate, the very bedrock upon which democratic legitimacy rests.

It is here that the concept of the “King Voter” finds resonance. Just as a monarch holds sway over the affairs of the realm, so too does the voter wield immense influence over the course of governance. Yet, unlike a monarch, the power of the voter is not absolute but derived from the collective will of the people. In a true democracy, the elected representatives are not rulers but custodians entrusted with the task of serving the interests of their constituents. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the voter to assert their authority and demand accountability from those who hold the reins of power.

The proposed amendment to Articles 78 and 167, advocating for the inclusion of the words “and voters” after the words “President” and “Governor,” represents a seminal step towards realizing the principles of participatory democracy. By enshrining the role of the voter within the constitutional framework, this amendment seeks to bridge the gap between the governed and the governing. It is a clarion call for transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the corridors of power.

At its core, democracy is not merely about periodic elections but about the ongoing engagement between citizens and their elected representatives. The inclusion of voters in Articles 78 and 167 serves as a reminder of this fundamental principle. It reinforces the idea that elected leaders are beholden to the electorate and must act in their best interests. No longer can decisions be made in isolation, shielded from public scrutiny. Instead, every action of the government must be subject to the vigilant gaze of an empowered citizenry.

However, the realization of the “King Voter” paradigm requires more than just a constitutional amendment; it necessitates a cultural shift in the way democracy is perceived and practiced. Voters must transcend the role of passive spectators and embrace their role as active participants in the democratic process. This entails not only casting ballots during elections but also holding elected officials accountable for their actions and decisions.

Furthermore, political parties bear a significant responsibility in this regard. They must recognize the legitimate aspirations of the electorate and incorporate them into their policy platforms. The inclusion of the proposed amendment in party manifestos for the Lok Sabha elections signifies a commitment to democratic principles and a willingness to empower voters. It sends a clear message that political legitimacy is contingent upon responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the people.

In the annals of history, the “King Voter” emerges as a potent symbol of democratic empowerment—a figure imbued with the authority to shape the course of nations. Through their collective actions and voices, voters have the power to hold governments to account, to demand transparency and accountability, and to ensure that democracy remains vibrant and resilient. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” It is incumbent upon each citizen to embrace their role as sovereigns of the ballot box and uphold the noble ideals of democracy for generations to come.

In conclusion, the concept of the “King Voter” represents a paradigm shift in the dynamics of democracy—a reassertion of the sovereignty of the people in the face of entrenched power structures. By advocating for the inclusion of voters in Articles 78 and 167 of the Constitution, citizens assert their rightful place as the ultimate arbiters of governance. In doing so, they reaffirm the timeless principles of democracy: that power emanates from the people and that governments exist to serve the interests of the governed. The “King Voter” stands not as a passive player but as a steward of democracy, wielding authority with wisdom, integrity, and a steadfast commitment to the common good.

Standard

Preserving Impartiality in Governance: Rethinking Post-Retirement Appointments

In the intricate tapestry of governance, the threads of bureaucracy and judiciary are woven together to form the fabric of democracy. The appointment of All India Service officers, senior state service officials, and judges to various tribunals, statutory commissions/boards, or other entities after retirement has been a long-standing tradition. It is perceived as a means to harness their vast knowledge, seasoned experience, and visionary insights for the greater good of the public. However, amidst the noble intentions lie lurking shadows of political influence and compromised impartiality.

The sanctity of bureaucratic and judicial systems is paramount for the sustenance of democracy. They serve as the custodians of justice, ensuring the rule of law prevails, and rights of citizens are protected. Yet, in a landscape where political parties vie for supremacy, the risk of undue influence looms large. Post-retirement appointments, intended to leverage expertise, often morph into avenues for political manipulation, eroding the very foundation of impartiality.

It is a disconcerting reality that officials appointed to such positions may succumb to pressures of political allegiance, forsaking their neutrality in decision-making. The allure of proximity to power can lead them astray, blurring the lines between duty and partisanship. Regrettably, meritocracy often takes a backseat to cronyism, as those aligned with the ruling dispensation are favored over deserving candidates, irrespective of competency.

In light of these challenges, a paradigm shift in the appointment process is imperative to safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions. The proposal to discontinue post-retirement appointments and instead introduce a system wherein officials are appointed during their final five years of service merits serious consideration. This would not only mitigate the risk of political interference but also ensure a seamless transition of experienced personnel into critical roles.

Under this proposed framework, officials would have the option to opt for post-retirement assignments at the age of 55, with the condition that they must relinquish their regular service upon assuming the new role. By introducing such a provision, the government can uphold the principle of impartiality while still benefiting from the wealth of knowledge and experience possessed by these individuals.

To facilitate this transition, the government may explore the possibility of increasing cadre strength to accommodate a small percentage of posts dedicated to such appointments, akin to the Central Deputation reserves. This would alleviate concerns regarding workforce shortage while affording deserving officials an opportunity to contribute to public service beyond their tenure.

Embracing this reformed approach holds the promise of rejuvenating the ethos of public service, anchored in professionalism and integrity. It underscores the commitment to meritocracy, wherein appointments are based on competence rather than proximity to power. Moreover, it reinforces the principle that public office is a privilege bestowed upon individuals entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the public good.

Critics may argue that such a transition could lead to a dearth of experienced personnel in critical positions. However, this concern can be assuaged by instituting measures for succession planning and talent development within the bureaucracy and judiciary. By nurturing a pipeline of competent professionals, the government can ensure continuity and efficacy in governance, while simultaneously fostering a culture of excellence.

In conclusion, the practice of appointing officials to key positions after retirement, though well-intentioned, has inadvertently become a breeding ground for political interference and compromised impartiality. It is incumbent upon us to recalibrate our approach, prioritizing the preservation of democratic values and institutional integrity. The proposal to transition towards pre-retirement appointments offers a viable solution, striking a delicate balance between leveraging expertise and upholding impartiality. As custodians of democracy, it is our collective responsibility to embrace reforms that strengthen the fabric of governance and safeguard the principles enshrined in our Constitution. Let us tread this path with resolve, guided by the unwavering commitment to a fair and just society.

Standard

Is India a Mother of Democracy?

India is often regarded as the world’s largest democracy and has a long and rich history of democratic practices. India’s democratic journey began in 1947 when the country gained independence from British colonial rule. The Indian Constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, established a democratic system of governance with an elected government, an independent judiciary, and fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens.

India’s democracy has faced numerous challenges, including corruption, communalism, and regionalism, but it has remained resilient and continues to evolve. India has held regular and peaceful elections since 1951, with the participation of millions of citizens across the country.

While India’s democratic credentials are strong, it would not be accurate to call India the “mother of democracy.” The concept of democracy has existed in various forms throughout history, and India’s democratic system has been influenced by other democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. However, India’s unique history, culture, and political environment have shaped its democratic system and made it a distinct model of democracy that has inspired other countries in the region and around the world.

(The ancient Greeks are often credited with being the “fathers of democracy,” as they were the first to develop a democratic system of government in the city-state of Athens around 500 BCE. The word “democracy” comes from the Greek words “demos,” meaning “people,” and “kratos,” meaning “rule” or “power.”

Since then, many countries have adopted democratic systems of government, each with their own unique histories and political cultures. However, it would not be accurate to call any one country the “mother of democracy,” as the concept of democracy has evolved and been influenced by various cultures and historical events over time.)

Standard