Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Paradox

The Supreme Court ruling, terming the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly as unconstitutional, on the one hand, and not reviving the dissolved Assembly, on the other, is paradoxical. The Court should have passed orders for the revival of the Assembly and directed the Centre to facilitate a trial of strength. The election process has only just started; it could have been stopped.

P.V. Raman,
Chennai

If the circumstances of the case did not warrant ordering of status quo ante what was unconstitutional about the dissolution? In the name of judicial review, the judiciary should not play the balancing game.

S. Anbalagan,
Kumbakonam, T.N.

The Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in view of the circumstances of the case and refused to revive the dissolved Assembly. Could not the considerations have included poverty, the possibility of another split verdict, and poll violence? That would have given the representatives a chance to regroup intelligently.

K.S. Venkatraman,
Chennai

What was the purpose of ruling that the dissolution was unconstitutional if there was no intent of staying the elections? The Court should have delivered the verdict earlier or should have waited until after the elections.

B. Krishnan,
Sahibabad, U.P.

The ruling would have been a landmark in our democracy but for its justification of fresh elections. Considering the importance of the matter, what prevented the Supreme Court from expediting the hearing and delivering the judgment a couple of weeks earlier?

Chinmaya Deva,
New Delhi

We have a scientist as head of the world's largest democracy and a highly educated and well-trained expert in economics with a successful track record to head its government. But, unfortunately, both gentlemen lack sufficient knowledge in constitutional matters — a fact proved by the Court ruling in the Bihar Assembly dissolution case.

Looking at the increasing number of similar instances in which the judiciary is being forced to intervene, it will be better in future to have such recommendations routed through the Supreme Court, before they are sent to the President for his signature.

V. Krishnakumar,
New Delhi

When the model code of conduct is in force, and it is expected that nothing should be done that may influence the free and fair conduct of elections or give a party an undue advantage, could not the judiciary have refrained from delivering a verdict that is sure to favour one party or the other?

Panna Lal Meghwal,
Jaipur

When the entire judgment, according to the judiciary, is not yet ready for pronouncement, what was the haste in pronouncing that the dissolution is unconstitutional?

B.G. Prakash,
Bangalore

The verdict has exposed a classic case of pre-meditated subversion of the people's mandate by a constitutional process. The Governor and the Prime Minister are squarely responsible for the re-election and avoidable expenditure.

J. Dorairaj,
Chennai

The Bihar tamasha has proved a costly entertainment for the nation, causing a huge financial drain and letting the main culprits go scot-free. Governors henceforth should be chosen from among educationists, retired scientists or judges who have no party bias.

Mirle S. Sita Ram,
Bangalore

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu