SC shows the way with Chandigarh poll verdict

COURTS are created to dispense justice. Sometimes, they do it in a manner that justifies the use of the term ‘honourable’ that is so routinely attached to them. There is near unanimity that the honourable Supreme Court vindicated the trust that people repose in it by its verdict in the Chandigarh mayoral election case. The manner in which it ‘investigated’ the episode and pronounced the order was unusual and dramatic. The misconduct by returning officer Anil Masih was also dramatic but bizarre, and it is unfortunately threatening to become usual.

On the face of it, the episode is about defacement of ballot papers. The heart of the matter, however, lies in some people losing face and many losing faith in the system. The court, in one fell swoop, has restored people’s faith, but only in the judiciary. The court also holds up a mirror to those who want to see the malaise in the system, but certainly not for those who are trying to save face by hiding. A Masih now and then erupts like a Harshad Mehta or Abdul Karim Telgi to show the world how deep the rot is, and we need to thank him for that. However, for every Masih, many go unnoticed, even if they have damaged the system irreparably.

Some people have tried to see in this episode pointers to the ‘EVM versus ballot paper’ debate, putting forth the argument that the EVM cannot be ‘defaced’ in a manner the ballot paper was. But then, in the case of a ballot paper, it is possible to detect defacement, whereas the hidden ‘defacement’ suspected by some in EVMs is hard to detect, according to them. This by no means should push us to revert to the ballot paper days and deprive ourselves of the efficiency gained by using EVMs. That, however, also doesn’t mean that the doubts pertaining to the EVMs should not be addressed. That is a separate raging public debate, which the SC is also seized of.

In the Masih case, the SC has delivered instant justice without resorting to the conventional dilatory ‘due process’. It conducted an open scrutiny and was able to discern the truth in a relatively straightforward matter that presented incontrovertible evidence. It would not have been just to conduct the election again, especially when the controversy was limited to spoiling a few ballot papers by the presiding officer for which conclusive evidence was available. The court rightly nullified the action of the presiding officer who vitiated the poll, and held those votes as valid while declaring the result. Returning officers exercised similar authority in the pre-EVM days when deciding the validity of ‘controversial’ ballot papers brought before them during counting. The verdict of the SC has been likened to the DRS (decision review system) in cricket, where the third umpire can overrule the decision of the field umpire without asking for the ball to be bowled again.

The court’s zeal is to be commended and not undermined simply because Masih was a relatively soft target. He rendered himself vulnerable by his brazen behaviour, which invited the wrath of the judges and made himself a ‘terrorist wearing a vest full of explosives’ visible to the eye. The court order should be seen as a nemesis that awaits all those who attempt to meddle with processes sanctified by regulations.

The deeper question, however, is whether Masih was a lone ranger. Were there others, too, who tied the ‘explosive vest’ around him and made him believe that he would get his just deserts if he ‘sacrificed’ his soul temporarily? That is something that calls for a probe into the entire sordid affair. The unseemly manner in which the ‘elected’ mayor rushed to occupy his seat certainly didn’t seem spontaneous exultation at hard-earned success but part of a plot that was scripted and the next scene was to be enacted on cue. The presiding officer was simply a prompter.

It was trickery all the way. First, the vile plot, then the inept execution, followed by the quick grab. The subsequent switch by councillors and the mayor’s resignation were clever but premature improvisation in response to a rapidly changing scenario. There must have been a mastermind at work. Finally, the court was the deus ex machina that dictated the denouement.

The possibility of a no-confidence motion against the new mayor to oust him lurks, if legally permitted. It could even succeed, for in this ‘marketplace’ everything has a price. That would merely sanctify further molestation of democracy because the law no longer frowns upon unnatural cohabitation. It is not surprising that not a word has been spoken on behalf of the party that benefited from such blatant, crude and conspiratorial effort to bring it to power.

What the apex court has done in the Masih case is to take justice to its logical conclusion. When the judges saw a daylight robbery and the robber apprehended, they decided that the ‘loot’ be returned. In this case, it was the most-valued democracy, for which the nation had waged a long struggle. With the SC restoring it, will the people of India do their bit to preserve it? Whether this principle should apply to the electoral bonds is a moot point.

This is not the first fight between David and Goliath, nor will it be the last. In the biblical fable, David won the fight against Goliath with a sling, a stone and the Lord on his side. Today, every David will need the courage of his convictions and the unstinted and unqualified support of the courts if he has any hope of winning. No wonder a judge is addressed as ‘my lord’.