Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta on Constitutional Morality
In a significant judicial observation, Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court underscored the failure of political regimes, both past and present, to adhere to constitutional morality. This statement was delivered during his separate opinion on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, in the case Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Critique of Political Leadership
Justice Datta highlighted the pervasive issue of criminal antecedents among parliamentarians and ministers, pointing out that such realities betray the “constitutional trust” vested in political leadership. He stated, “The misfortune of the people of India is that the lofty ideals envisioned by the Constitution have largely remained unfulfilled due to a lack of intent and disregard for constitutional morality by successive ruling regimes. This has led to significant institutional erosion.”
Historical Context and Judicial Restraint
Reflecting on historical precedents, Justice Datta issued a caution regarding judicial intervention in election-related matters. He recalled that the Supreme Court’s previous engagement with such sensitive issues without restraint inadvertently triggered the National Emergency. This serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of judicial actions on democratic processes.
Constitutional Trust and Morality
In response to the Centre’s assertion that the Prime Minister’s office embodies sacred constitutional trust, Justice Datta critiqued the political parties’ failure to cleanse public life. He emphasized that references to constitutional trust must include the morality of the appointment processes themselves. Citing historical warnings by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, he warned against institutional capture and electoral fraud facilitated by governmental influence.
Institutional Critique and Legislative Framework
Justice Datta lamented the political reluctance to cede executive control over the Election Commission of India (ECI). For over seventy years, no ruling party has enacted a legislative framework under Article 324(2) to ensure independence of the ECI. He remarked, “This has not been the failing of any one party or period but a consistent trait of political power to maintain leverage over the electoral body meant to judge its claim to power.”
More Read
Structural Flaws in Selection Process
Highlighting structural issues, Justice Datta criticized the executive’s 2:1 majority in the election commissioner selection panel. Using a cricket metaphor, he illustrated the perception problem: “If the umpire is chosen by one team’s captain and that team wins, even correct decisions by the umpire are suspect due to their origin.”
Split Verdict and Systemic Delays
The observations came as part of a split verdict where Justice Datta opposed referring the 2023 Act challenge to a larger bench, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma advocated for it. Both justices acknowledged the systemic delays in resolving constitutional references, urging Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to consider a permanent 5-Judge Constitution Bench for core issues.
Conclusion
The judgment reflects a critical analysis of the political landscape’s adherence to constitutional values and the structural integrity of institutional processes, urging reforms and greater judicial consideration in election-related matters.
