In a democracy like ours, nothing remains the same except for the idea of democracy and the welfare of people. Governance, the judiciary, and laws must change with the times. The Constitution, government, and judiciary exist to serve society. In a healthy democracy, change is necessary, but any change should aim to bring peace, prosperity, and progress.
Since the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government came to power at the Centre and in many states, the opposition groups, such as the UPA and INDIA, have been quite unsettled. Parties like the Congress, which have held power for a long time since Independence, find it difficult to sit in the Opposition. This discomfort is visible in how they act both inside and outside of Parliament.
Recently, the Opposition has become more aggressive in its efforts to remove the lawfully elected NDA/BJP government. Their only goal seems to be to overthrow the current governments, and they are using all means—whether fair or foul—to achieve this. This includes alleged involvement with foreign powers and anti-India groups. From questioning the surgical strikes on Pakistan to violent protests against the CAA-NRC, the Opposition’s actions have raised concerns about their national loyalty.
In states ruled by the Opposition, violence has become common. Instead of upholding law and order, some leaders are accused of supporting or protecting criminals. The Constitution gives states control over law and order, so the Centre can only intervene when requested by the state. However, in states like West Bengal and Punjab, lawlessness has been difficult to control. The Opposition not only refuses help from the Centre but also uses state police to target members of the ruling NDA.
The situation is getting dire. Using the Constitution’s federal provisions, some Opposition-ruled states are allegedly creating chaos and possibly a civil war-like situation. This misuse of federalism is dangerous, and the central government cannot allow it to continue. There is a growing call to amend the Constitution and move law and order from the State List to the Union List. This change may be proposed in the upcoming winter session of Parliament to prevent further deterioration of law and order.
Supreme Court on Compromise Cases
In a recent case titled XYZ Vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court ruled that when recording a compromise in non-compoundable offences, especially when the victim is a woman, the court should ensure the victim is personally present. Even if there is an affidavit, the court should verify the settlement in person. The case involved a woman who claimed she didn’t understand the contents of an affidavit that was used to settle the case. The Supreme Court stressed that the presence of the victim is crucial, especially in serious offences.
Rajasthan HC on Use of Certain Words
The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that certain words like “Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari,” and “Mangni” do not specifically refer to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST). Therefore, using these words in public against an SC/ST person does not violate the SC/ST Act. However, the court allowed a case to proceed against the accused on other charges, including obstructing public servants from doing their duty. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident where local people prevented a government team from removing obstructions in Jaisalmer.
Liquor Ban in Bihar: A Boon for Corrupt Officials?
The Patna High Court criticized the poor enforcement of the liquor ban in Bihar, which was introduced in 2016. According to Justice Purnendu Singh, the ban has mainly benefited government employees in departments such as Excise, Police, Transport, and Tax, leading to widespread corruption. Meanwhile, the poor are suffering the most from the ban, especially with the rise in deadly hooch incidents. The noble goal of eliminating alcohol consumption, as envisioned in the Constitution, has not been met. The court was hearing a case involving the demotion and suspension of a police inspector found with foreign liquor during a raid. The court quashed the punishment and departmental proceedings against the officer.
