Dr Mayank Chaturvedi
In a democracy, every citizen has the right to speak their mind. Whether one disagrees with the decisions of those in power, wishes to question the workings of a constitutional body, or has a complaint about the electoral process, the public has every right to raise its voice. But when the price of protest begins to be paid by people who have nothing to do with the dispute, it is only natural that the method of protest should come under scrutiny.
The 10 October demonstration by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has triggered precisely this debate across the country. The party is protesting in Delhi against the Chief Election Commissioner and demanding his resignation, and opposing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. With the prospect of crowds, traffic jams and security challenges in the capital, the railways cancelled trains on a large scale and rescheduled or rerouted many others.
On 9 October, after 2 pm, the railways cancelled all mail and express trains starting from their originating stations that were due to arrive at New Delhi or Hazrat Nizamuddin between 4 am and 2 pm on 10 October. Northern Railway also cancelled 170 passenger trains in the Delhi region. In all, 245 trains are reported to have been cancelled, comprising 75 mail/express services and 170 passenger services. The timings of many trains were altered, and some were curtailed to intermediate stations.
The impact at stations was plain to see. Passengers were left stranded in Jammu. In Kanpur, one traveller, unable to find a direct train to Delhi, first had to travel 50–60 kilometres by bus before catching a train. A young man said that getting a ticket was hard enough already, and now his train had been cancelled even though his ticket was confirmed. Trains running from Bengaluru were diverted at Bhopal, and passengers who needed to travel on to their homes were forced to get off midway and continue their journeys by road. In this way, lakhs of passengers across many states have been left distressed. Behind every passenger are a family, a job and plans, and naturally all of these have been disrupted.
Those who invoke the Constitution while trying to create an atmosphere of anarchy across the country should also see what the Constitution actually says. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. But Article 19(3) provides for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of public order. Article 51A(i) sets out the fundamental duty of every citizen to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.
The Supreme Court, too, has drawn the line of balance in the same place. In the Ramlila Maidan case (2012), it held that peaceful assembly is a fundamental right but may be subject to lawful restrictions. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Court spoke of designated sites for protest and balanced rules. In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), the Shaheen Bagh case, it held the indefinite occupation of public roads to be unacceptable. What matters even more than the right to protest, therefore, is what the consequences of that protest turn out to be.
The passenger whose train was cancelled could be a patient, an elderly person, an examination candidate, a labourer, or anyone travelling with their family. For them, a single day’s delay can cost a job, a course of treatment or an examination. The purpose of a movement is to build public support. Here, the very public whose support is being sought is the one visibly suffering.
Rahul Gandhi, the CJP and other leaders, who are spreading this chaos over the issue at hand, should also know what the Constitution actually says. Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. Article 326 is the basis of adult suffrage, under which every citizen aged 18 or above has the right to become a voter. It is therefore essential both that eligible names remain on the rolls and that ineligible entries are removed, and there is always an opportunity to correct a name deleted in error.
These agitators should also look at the constitutional position on the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation. Under Article 324(5), he can be removed only in the same manner, and on the same grounds, as a judge of the Supreme Court, through the procedure laid down by Parliament. This safeguard exists to protect the Commission’s independence. It does not mean that the Commission is beyond question, but a demand for resignation needs to rest on evidence. If any organisation has proof that eligible voters’ names have been wrongly deleted, it should make that proof public. Article 32 and Article 226 also provide direct access to the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively. The street and the courtroom can run in parallel, but facts are essential in both.
What is happening today? An organisation that claims to defend the rights of voters ought to show sensitivity towards the rights of ordinary citizens as well, namely the right to travel, to receive medical treatment and to arrive on time. That sensitivity is missing.
In a democracy, it is only natural to expect that those who demand rights will also respect the rights of others. The events surrounding the detention of the Cockroach Janta Party’s founder Abhijeet Dipke, co-convener Saurav Das and spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport illustrate this even more starkly. All three had arrived in Delhi to protest at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and in opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls.
During this episode, other passengers on the aircraft were also made to wait. One passenger said in his annoyance that he did not know who Abhijeet Dipke was, but that they were being put to trouble because of him. If the public itself must struggle to resolve every problem, what is the role of the courts and established institutions?
Indeed, the remark of the passenger on board, that if the public is going to do everything, the courts might as well be shut down, is a sharp reaction to the present situation. It also reflects the ordinary citizen’s expectations of the system. People want disputes to be resolved through established procedures, and public life to carry on at its normal pace. The Constitution has assigned different responsibilities to different institutions. The message from the public today is therefore clear: protest, press your demands forcefully, produce evidence if you allege wrongdoing, and demand answers from the responsible institutions. But also make sure that the burden of your fight does not fall on the lakhs and crores of citizens who have no connection with the dispute at all.
Hindusthan Samachar / Mayank Chaturvedi
