The Constitution Is Written Not in Ink, but in Blood: Constitutional Morality and Institutional Dignity

 

The Constitution Is Written Not in Ink, but in Blood: Constitutional Morality and Institutional Dignity

Recently, the Election Commission has been in the news, and the episode has emerged in the context of attempts to undermine the image and legitimacy of the institution. This entire episode reminds us that the morality of peace, the morality of war, and the morality of the Constitution need to be made part of public discourse.

Unfortunately, the controversy arose following a report published in The Indian Express regarding the alleged views of Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi, suggesting that the functioning and decision-making of the Election Commission suffered from a lack of democracy. The two Election Commissioners cannot be given the benefit of not knowing how dissent ought to be expressed, because both the manner of expressing disagreement and the timing of such expression are important. However, sharing confidential correspondence with the media amounts to inviting a media trial—not merely of an individual, but of an institution.

It is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs that persons holding constitutional offices, whether driven by personal animosity, ignorance or political considerations, may end up leaving no stone unturned in damaging the reputation and dignity of constitutional institutions.

This episode reminds us of the famous observations of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who, on 4 November 1948, spoke about the absence of constitutional morality in India. Quoting Grote, he said:

"The diffusion of constitutional morality, not merely among the majority of any community but throughout the whole, is the indispensable condition of a government at once free and peaceable; since even any powerful and obstinate minority may render the working of a free institution impracticable, without being strong enough to conquer ascendency for themselves."

He further explained that by constitutional morality, Grote meant:

"a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution, enforcing obedience to authority acting under and within these forms yet combined with the habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control, and unrestrained censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts combined too with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen amidst the bitterness of party contest that the forms of the Constitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than in his own."

It is rightly said that appointment to a constitutional office, particularly an office carrying national responsibility, must satisfy the minimum requirements of character and competence. A person possessing national character will always place the nation first and uphold the dignity of constitutional institutions above personal grievances.

This can also be examined in the context of the functioning of the Election Commission, where decisions are taken unanimously. If there is any substance in the allegations of dictatorship against Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar, both Election Commissioners should refer to their dissenting views, if any, recorded in the notes at the time of arriving at the decisions. Therefore, allegations made in the public domain should not be treated as established facts without examining the relevant record.

The controversy has also led Opposition parties to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar. This has provided the Opposition parties with a ready-made issue. Such demands raise serious questions about the quality and level of political discourse.

A surrogate war appears to have begun. The failure of political leadership in the Opposition is sought to be attributed to the functioning of the Election Commission, with attempts being made to revive questions concerning EVMs and the SIR exercise.

Political leadership appears to be failing in the exercise of self-introspection that issues concerning EVMs and SIR have been subjected to judicial scrutiny and have been considered in judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The attitude that political parties are bigger than the law and constitutional institutions reflects a very low level of respect for the rule of law.

It is said that the legislature has a Lakshman Rekha in the form of the Basic Structure doctrine propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati, which operates as a constitutional limitation subject to judicial review. But where is the Lakshman Rekha for politicians when it comes to dealing with matters and institutions of national importance?

In the desperation to acquire power, political parties sometimes reach a point where constitutional morality, constitutional propriety, and self-restraint in public life and public discourse are placed aside in the pursuit of victory over a political opponent.

The Opposition must remember that the more it believes in the Constitution, the greater will be the people's faith in the Constitution. The legitimacy and dignity of constitutional institutions are not built in a single day.

T. N. Seshan demonstrated the power and role of the Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections, and his tenure remains an important chapter in the institutional history of Indian democracy.

The right to dissent is a fundamental right of every citizen and every political party, but it is not absolute. The Constitution itself provides for reasonable restrictions. Both the ruling party and the Opposition are expected to observe a code of conduct, and dealing with institutions of national importance, particularly the Election Commission, demands a high degree of self-restraint.

Ultimately, it is always useful to remember the famous words of Laurence H. Tribe:

“The Constitution is written not in ink, but in blood.”