Over the last seventy years since India’s independence, democratic culture has taken deep root in the country. In such conditions, while some critics of the democratic system describe Indian democracy as noisy and chaotic, the fact remains that the democratic framework in India has protected the freedom of speech and action of citizens to a remarkable degree, if one takes a holistic view of the overall scenario.
Indian democracy stands on four pillars: the Legislature, which makes the laws; the Executive, which implements them; the Judiciary, which interprets laws and delivers justice; and the Media, which informs the public and holds the other pillars accountable.
These pillars must work together to ensure the smooth functioning of democracy by balancing power without conflict and by protecting citizens’ rights. By and large, there has been a culture of smooth interaction among the four pillars, and they have stood the test of time.
Among the four pillars, it has also been recognised that the decisions of the Judiciary should be binding on the other three pillars whenever a dispute has to be resolved. This view—that the final authority ultimately rests with the Judiciary—has been widely accepted in the country by consensus across the common citizenry until now.
The views and decisions of the Judiciary on any matter are taken seriously by the people and are accepted unquestioningly, even if some may disagree. Such overriding importance given to the Judiciary has been a significant contributing factor in enabling Indian democracy to survive and progress.
In this context, the ongoing issue at the Thiruparankundram temple in Tamil Nadu, regarding the lighting of the Deepam (holy lamp) during the Karthigai festival, has raised concerns. The order of the Judiciary permitting the lighting of the Deepam within a particular time frame has been defied by the Tamil Nadu government. This defiance has raised eyebrows and caused concern among discerning observers about the future trajectory of democratic processes in India. Such open defiance of a judicial order by a state government has never occurred before in the country.
The Judiciary has issued a contempt notice to the concerned authorities in the Tamil Nadu government for defying the court order and has unequivocally condemned such defiance.
Now, the question is: what will happen next? If the Judiciary remains helpless in such circumstances and its orders end up as mere paper directives, will this create a new trend of politicians and governments openly defying judicial authority? If such conditions are allowed to persist, they would weaken India’s democratic process and lead to chaos.
While discerning observers clearly see the writing on the wall, there is considerable anxiety in the country about how the Judiciary will deal with this situation. Will the defiant politicians in the government be allowed to have the last laugh?
Obviously, the Judiciary must assert itself to ensure that its orders are obeyed without question. It must take the bull by the horns and punish the government for such defiance.
The next question is: what kind of punishment should be imposed, considering the seriousness of the situation? Probably, the dismissal of the state government could be the ultimate solution. But does the Judiciary have the power to do so, or the courage of conviction to exercise such power and issue a dismissal order? This is a major question before the people of India today.
In the past, there have been occasions when state governments were dismissed by the Central government, and the Judiciary exercised its powers to overrule the Centre and restore the dismissed governments. When this is so, logically, the Supreme Court must also have the power to dismiss a government for defying its orders.
