Common Civil Code and Real Democracy – 2

Should we have Different Criminal Code for different communities?

No.

Why?

Because Criminal Code is related with criminal offences, and criminal Offences are affecting to the very existence of human life. It is related to the body and mental torture, whereas the civil code is related with the property and family disputes. Mental torture can be generated by the civil offender/s too. Somehow or other, there is a political tradition to view both separately. A civil case can be withdrawn without the permission of the court, whereas for withdrawing a criminal case,  because it is lodged by the government, the Government can withdraw the case withdraw the case with the permission of the court.

Mental torture is common in both the type of cases. Mental torture makes a human unhappy. Classification of offences under the civil and the criminal is simply a further classifications just to deal with arrest, bails and the authorities to lodge the complaint. The cases related with criminal offence are lodged by the police and dealt by the police whereas the civil cases are filed by the affected individual/s or the institutions.

Now when the Glob is becoming a village, and rise in democratic values, a country which thinks itself a democratic country has to go towards Common Civil Code for all its communities.

What is community?

A group of people which has something in common among them and they want to maintain that commonality.

E.g.

The people who like liquor,

The people who like potatoes,

The people who like tragedy movies,

The people who like comedy movies,

The people who speak a same language

The people who play instruments e.g. Drum, flute, …

The people who like to sing,

The people who like to hear music, e.g. Desi Classical, Folk, Western, … or of every place,

The people who like to think on a same class of thought

The people who like to do physical exercise,

The people who like to believe to do the same activity

The people who like to follow some tradition,

The people who like to have varieties, (This is also a choice and that exists too)

.

.

.

The list has no end.

Like minded people get more pleasure when they perform jointly,

They also like to spread their belief so that they can be more happy.

Every thing could be good to some extent, unless the group of like minded people do not harm the other lot/s.

Thereby the mentally developed countries have framed some rules (e.g. national constitutions) with the help of some people who had so called wisdom and foresight. These rules are to be followed by every body.

The existence of such rules is the first step towards non-violence. Non-violence means minimum violence by the given and designated authority. This authority imposes punishment on the person/s who broke a rule.

If a rule itself provide injustice, then a designated institution say a court, would decide . Peoples’ representative will change the rule under recognized and stipulated procedure.

Now suppose there is a party having majority in the LS and RS. A scam takes place. The opposition parties ask for the investigation. But the ruling party bluntly denies to carryout any investigation. Then what to do?

A scam on a purchase of Jeeps by the Ministry of the Defense

In early fifties of last century, a purchase order of 2000 refurbished Jeeps was placed on a bogus company of the UK. A scam was noticed. It is a long story. The Nehruvian Government had no excuse. Opposition parties asked for a regular investigation. Nehru refused bluntly in 1955 and asked the opposition to take the case in the next general elections before the public which was due in 1957.

At that time there was no PIL. HC/SC did not take SUO/ MOTTO. How do you grade Nehruvian Government on this point?

People were ignorant at a large. Nehru and Menon were made highly popular. Nehru had got a tremendous welcome in China and USSR. Menon delivered a prolonged lecture in UNO on Kashmir. Both were made popular on these points. People were not aware of the facts related to the Jeep Scam.

Under this circumstances, an agitation had to be launched. The opposition parties were helpless. During the general elections of 1957 the reconstructions of states based on local language was introduced. The people were more interested for their local rights. The Jeep Scandal was sidelined.

What is the purpose of agitation in democracy?

The purpose of agitation in democracy is to make the people aware of any issue generated or came to the notice that causes injustice to individual/s.

The injustice could be by a defective law, noticed under a changed circumstance of an individual or a community or the nation.

Is it that in this circumstances people can ask the government to find out solution?

No. Not at this stage. At this stage the law has to be interpreted by judiciary. If Judiciary finds it is making injustice and the same is hurting the right/s provided by the constitution, it can be straightway declared null and void.

But supposed the matter is confusing to the judiciary, the judiciary can ask the government to modify the law or to frame a new law.

If the Government willfully fails to follow the advice of judiciary the people can use the right to agitation.

What is the permissible way to conduct agitation?

There has to be a system in democracy.

No agitation is permissible where a time limit by the Judiciary has proposed or the government itself has given a time limit to modify the law or to frame a new law.

No agitation is permissible which causes inconvenience to the others. E.g. What we had observed at Shaheen Bag, Sindhu border ….

A state Government cannot conduct agitation against other State Government or the Central Government. Such matters must be resolved through court.

E.g.

Mamata had obstructed the work of a central investigation team. (The judiciary was supposed to take Suo Motto on the protest of Mamata. The judiciary could had passed an order of suspension of Mamata who behaved rashly and obstructed the work entrusted to the Central Government agency.

When a dispute between an organization/person and the Government/organization arises, the matter must be decided by the judiciary. If the judiciary says that it is out of its jurisdiction, then only agitation is permissible.

What could be the main principles of Agitation? On what type of points, one can agitate?

(1) There should be the specially constituted courts and these courts shall work under HC/SC to entertain such application for conducting agitation,

(2) The person/organization who is desirous to agitate shall apply before the special court with its full details of the organization with a list of office bears, and the details of the persons going to take part in agitation, their names, addresses and identity

(3) The application should contain the pointwise brief description of dispute including the reaction or approach of the opposite party,

(4) The applicant/s should indicate as to what is/are point/s and how its rights/interest are damaged,

(5) The applicant/s must indicate the type of agitation, viz, Place, route, picketing, procession, Token strike Hunger strike, on to the death strike, rally, …

(6) The applicant must indicate as to what arrangement has been made to see the agitation remains non-violent (i.e. Not going to harm others in others in any way).

(7) The applicant must indicate as to how the agitation is going to be managed financially,

(8) The special court will grant the permission after serving the notice to the concern Government and ”the public through local Government owned TV Channel” in the place where the agitation is to be launched.

(9) There must be court clearance, and court should pass an order, that this agitation is permissible and the people involved cannot wait to take the matter in the next general elections.

(10) While conducting agitation, the agitating person/institution must be meaningfully ready all the times for discussion with opposite party.

(11) To provide such procedure in a democratic country and to make provision of such courts, is inevitable, because the judges are, like many others, do not have physical and moral courage, both. Under such circumstances, we cannot expect judges to give independent judgement. This has been also confirmed by a retired Supreme Court judge. What else proof is required?

How the Common Civil Code will work?

(Continued)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave