Latest news with #GovernmentofIndiaActof1935
Hindustan Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Taste of Life: Doer of Gandhiji's philosophy of decentralised democracy
Pune: The Government of India Act of 1935, a landmark piece of legislation, brought about significant democratic reforms in India. It granted a large measure of autonomy to provinces, ended the 'dyarchy' system at the provincial level, and introduced direct elections. Mahatma Gandhi had been talking and writing about the implementation of democracy since the 1920s. His model of democracy and development was based on an upward movement of authority from the base to the apex, unlike the British model. He imagined a democracy where the village was the core unit. For this to happen, the people had to be educated and the village self-reliant. The concept of 'gramoddhar', or village upliftment and development, was thus central to Gandhiji's philosophy of decentralised democracy. However, this development was not limited to material wealth. He wanted the villagers to be spiritually and intellectually equipped to be able to think and make decisions about themselves, their villages, and their country. As a result, India in the early 1930s witnessed a heightened discussion centred on the upliftment and development of villages that gained momentum after the reforms of 1935. That the villagers were uneducated and hence not eligible to participate in the democratic process was a favourite argument of a certain section of the society. Gandhiji and his followers not only staunchly opposed this, but also made efforts to bring about a change. Reverend AG Hog, principal of Christian College, addressed students at the convocation of the Madras University on August 10, 1935. He said, 'More than ever before India needs to find in her citizens qualities of the kind which is the function of the universities to foster and develop. She needs citizens, men and women, who learn to think for themselves and to act as they think and whose judgements have the well-informed and sympathetic wisdom that comes from wide and wisely chosen reading. She needs those who seek a charitable and sympathetic understanding of views with which they disagree. She needs those who speak nothing but the truth. Where, if not to her universities, shall she look for such citizens?' The Marathi newspaper 'Dnyanaprakash' in its editorial on August 14, 1935, quoted this speech to stress upon the need for 'gramoddhar'. It appealed to the educated class to work in villages and urged the universities to modify the curriculum to make education more inclusive. It also featured an article next to the editorial about the work done by Mr DS Modak in the village of Mundhwa. Modak, the personal assistant to the Collector of Poona, believed in 'gramoddhar' and was one of the few who walked the talk. In the 1930s, he did some exemplary work at Pimple, Ranjangaon, and Mundhwa, the villages around Pune. He worked hard to make these villages models for 'gramoddhar'. Mundhwa was five miles from Pune and known all over Maharashtra for its paper mill, which was visible from the Hadapsar Railway Station. But the village was far from clean. Sewers from Pune flowed into Mundhwa. There were puddles of dirty water everywhere. The roads were always full of mud during the monsoon and dust flew everywhere during the summer. Modak decided to change this. But he wanted the change to come from the villagers themselves. He knew that the villagers could not be ordered around. The importance of self-reliance had to be explained to them without being condescending. He had to treat them with respect and dignity. He had to earn their trust and he could not do so by living in Pune. He started spending a lot of time in Mundhwa. He visited the village every Sunday and sometimes after work. He ate with the farmers and went to their farms with them. He strived hard to make them see him as one of their own. In 1934, the residents of Mundhwa were convinced of the need to improve the condition of their village. The villagers decided to build a drainage system themselves in the village without relying on the government. Groups were formed who took turns to volunteer with the construction activity. A few months later, Mundhwa boasted of clean roads and a fairly sophisticated drainage system. Modak invited the 'Gramsudhar Samiti' (village improvement committee) constituted by the Congress party to visit the village. The Samiti was impressed and requested Modak to continue with his work. Modak often discussed the economic upliftment of their families with the farmers. He realised that the money earned from farming was not sufficient to guarantee a decent standard of living and that additional activities were necessary to supplement the income. He introduced beekeeping and jam-making to the people of Mundhwa. Mr Balaram, who worked with the agricultural department, visited Mundhwa every Sunday to teach the vocation of beekeeping. Mr Narhar Gangadhar Apte spent a month in Mundhwa to teach jam-making. There were many orchards, gardens, and sugarcane farms in Mundhwa. The guavas from the village were quite popular in the Bombay Presidency. The proximity of these gardens was stimulating for the bees to build their hives. Fruits like guava were cheaper in season and resulted in losses for the gardeners. But the business of guava jam made sure that they did not incur any more losses. When the market did not fetch a decent price for guavas, instead of selling the fruit at a low price, the farmers made jam that could be sold throughout the year in the markets of Poona Cantonment and Bombay. The additional income from selling of jams resulted in an increase in the enrolment at the local school. A night school was soon started for adults. Children of farmers and herdsmen who worked during the day attended this school. Modak also introduced soap-making as a business in Mundhwa. He had told the Samiti that the upliftment of villages was not possible unless the income and purchasing power of the villagers did not improve. According to him, better roads, buildings, and drainage systems did not mean much unless the villagers had sustainable sources of income that enabled them to sail through emergencies like famines and floods. The income also enabled them to seek better education. In this regard, he put forth a proposal for land consolidation during a meeting with the Samiti. This consolidation of holdings was supposed to benefit the farmers in several ways -brokerage would be curbed, farm income would increase, and the living conditions of the farmers would improve. Many residents of Mundhwa wholeheartedly embraced the scheme and tried to persuade every landholder to accept consolidation. I do not know how long Modak continued to work at Mundhwa. In his address, Rev Hog said - 'Remembering that India consists mainly of villages, I can conceive of nothing more noble, and for a true son or daughter of a university nothing more appropriate, than a life spent in combating the ignorance and other social ills that hold villages of India in thrall.' 'Maharashtra', a Marathi daily published from Nagpur, complained on January 18, 1936, that public lectures related to village upliftment were usually crowded, but there were very few people in cities like Nagpur, Pune, and Bombay who participated in this work. It wrote that if one tried to see how much work was done in villages, they would be disappointed. Modak and the villagers of Mundhwa were honourable exceptions. They took up 'gramoddhar' when India was about to enter upon a constitutional experiment, the precise issues of which no one could foresee. Gandhiji's genius lies in combining democratic principles with the upliftment of villages. Perhaps it is not too late to revisit his ideas. Chinmay Damle is a research scientist and food enthusiast. He writes here on Pune's food culture. He can be contacted at
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
After President Murmu seeks advisory opinion from SC, can court overturn its R N Ravi decision?
President Draupadi Murmu has on Tuesday invoked the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction on whether timelines could be set for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state Assemblies. As per Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President may refer a 'question of law or fact' to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The SC's opinion, unlike a ruling, is not binding in nature. Significantly, President Murmu made the reference just five weeks after the SC's controversial April 8 ruling in which it fixed a three-month deadline for the President to clear Bills reserved for his/her consideration by the Governor. The ruling by a two-judge Bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala also set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 pending Bills. The Government of India Act of 1935 had similar provisions to seek the opinion of the Federal Court but only on questions of law. The Constitution extended this to both questions of law and fact, including certain hypotheticals. A question under Article 143 may be referred if it 'has arisen, or is likely to arise,' and 'which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.' The SC returns the reference to the President with the majority opinion. Article 145(3) requires five judges to hear any such reference. The Constitution prescribes that the President act on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. The advisory jurisdiction is a sparsely invoked power to ensure that the President has means to seek independent advice to act on certain constitutional matters. Article 143 states the Court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.' The use of the word 'may' indicates that it is the Court's prerogative to answer — or not to answer — the reference. However, the SC almost always answers the reference. In at least 14 Presidential references made since 1950, the apex court has returned only one without answering, and that too for technical reasons. The SC did not answer Special Reference No 1 of 1982 which was made by then President Giani Zail Singh on whether the Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1980, or any of its provisions, would be constitutionally invalid, if enacted. The law sought to regulate the resettlement or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants) who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947 and May 14, 1954. However, after the President's reference, the Bill was passed for a second time and the Governor gave his assent. Petitions challenging the validity of the laws were also moved before the SC. 'Having regard to the fact that the Bill became an Act as far back as in 1982, it appears to us inexpedient to answer the question posed to us in the Reference. Even if we were to answer the question in the affirmative, we would be unable to strike down the Act in this proceeding. We think, therefore, that the Reference must be, respectfully, returned unanswered,' it said in 2001. Since advisory jurisdiction is not binding as a precedent, even if the SC held the law to be unconstitutional in the Article 143 reference, it would still have to separately decide the validity of the law. The SC's opinion to the President would also be futile since the issue was not before the President anymore. The SC in its 1991 opinion involving the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, has said Article 143 is not a mechanism for the executive to seek review or reversal of established judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. 'When this Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is,' the opinion had said. The SC had also said that it cannot 'countenance a situation' where a question in a reference 'may be so construed as to invite our opinion' on a settled decision of the SC. 'That would obviously be tantamount to our sitting in appeal on the said decision which it is impermissible for us to do even in adjudicatory jurisdiction. Nor is it competent for the President to invest us with an appellate jurisdiction over the said decision through a Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution,' the Court had said. The government can still file a review of the SC's April 8 ruling, and even move a curative petition to reverse it. Since the judgment is by a two-judge Bench and similar cases from other states, including Kerala and Punjab, are pending, it is possible that another Bench may refer it to a larger constitutional bench. However, the present reference contains 14 questions of law, which are mostly drawn from the April 8 ruling but are not limited to it. The last three questions raise larger issues on how the SC exercises its discretionary powers provided by the Constitution. In Question 12, the reference asks whether the SC must first determine if a case involves a 'substantive question of law' or requires 'interpretation of the Constitution' that only a larger Bench can hear. This is essentially questioning whether smaller benches can hear such important issues. In Question 13, the reference raises questions on the use of Article 142 of the Constitution, which is the discretionary 'power to do complete justice.' The last question also asks the SC to define the contours of Centre-state disputes that can be heard by any court. Article 131 of the Constitution states that 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute.' Why has the reference been made? Issues in the R N Ravi case essentially involved the interplay between the Centre and opposition ruled states. Governors who are appointed by the Centre were seen to be undercutting elected state governments by simply not clearing Bills passed in the Assembly. While the SC addressed this issue, it extended its scrutiny to the role of the President's powers as well, setting a three-month timeline to clear Bills reserved for his/her consideration by the Governor. The SC's reason for involving the President was because Governor Ravi, under fire from the SC for withholding assent, had referred 10 Bills to the President. This was seen by the SC as an artful tactic to stall bills by involving the President. The SC in its ruling allowed states the right to seek a 'writ of mandamus' from the SC against the President. This is essentially a right to knock on the Courts seeking a directive against the President if she does not decide on bills within the prescribed time limit. The ruling came under criticism from the government with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar raising the issue in Rajya Sabha. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani too criticised the ruling as the President 'was not heard' before the SC passed directives for her office to follow. The ruling also gave fresh impetus for the government to attack the judiciary on the grounds that it was undermining Parliament or the people's mandate. Dhankar has raised the issue of 'Parliamentary supremacy' several times in the past, and called for limited judicial review and greater adherence to the separation of powers. However, these fissures between the Parliament and the judiciary are as old as the Constitution itself. In the first three decades since independence, the courts and successive governments sparred on interpretation of the right to property, leading to constitutional amendments and their striking down. Eventually, in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling, the SC allowed land reforms, watering down the fundamental right to property but severely restricted the Parliament's powers to tinker with any other fundamental right. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
