Populist causes, in a fractured polity, tend to have a face-off with the law. Mamata Banerjee’s cause is a case in point. Populist methods seriously threaten the foundations of the rule of law. Didi did not assist the aggrieved farmers (if they are truly aggrieved) to resort to legal remedies to vindicate their grievances. The courts have not only the power but the duty to deal with violation of the rights of the downtrodden — of course they are not a vehicle to achieve a political agenda.

A hunger strike until death is demanding a result at the threat of a criminal act (that is, suicide), which is blackmail. If political blackmail gains legitimacy, it will be a sure step towards anarchy. It is blasphemous to compare these threats to Gandhiji’s satyagraha which was directed against a foreign monarch who ruled India. Besides, nobody could question the ‘satya’ of the ‘satyagraha’!

The courts are duty-bound to enforce the law even if it has unpopular consequences. If the Supreme Court has to enforce the town planning law on a street by street basis, it is not excessive activism but a testimony to an abysmal failure of those whose primary duty it is to enforce the law.

The argument that the courts are neither meant nor equipped to run the country, though true, is a mere attempt to obfuscate the real issues. The real issue is the gradual decline in the credibility of the other institutions of governance. Egregious corruption has eroded public confidence in the other institutions — the elected representatives, the civil service and the police. The judiciary — and in particular the Supreme Court — is seen as the only surviving hope.

... contd.