Vaprümu Demo
[dropcap]A[/dropcap] couple of weeks back some members of (I should say) intellectual authority, had pricked our subconscious mind by unlocking a hitherto unconsidered, un-debated subject matter of whether the Constitution of India or Article 371(A) is supreme. Whether or not, one agrees with their points of interpretation or formulations of their argument in favour of the Constitution, at least their lucid write-up have provoked the subliminal contemplation of the curious and the critic alike. This way, it has also prompted me to analyse and interpret my reading of the subject although from a differing angle. That the Constitution is supreme is unquestionably and indisputably true. The supremacy of our constitution is characterized by the (i) predetermined pledge of The Preamble to the Constitution; (ii) the fundamental right, fundamental law, federal structure etc enshrined from Article 1 to Article 394(A) and also the supplementary scheduled provisions from First to Twelfth Scheduled. The supremacy of the Constitution is also characterized by the fact that the basic structures of the constitution cannot be amended or overridden. It can be taken for granted that Art 371(A) is no less a basic structure of the constitution for reason that first, it is the offshoot of the 16 Point Agreement and secondly the Naga problem remains, even as the GOI has taken full cognizance of it. Political parties like BJP at one point of time demanded that Art 370 should be withdrawn or amended for alleged reason that Kashmir problem had deteriorated because of such extra constitutional provision. The consequent situation in the event of withdrawing or amending such provision, be it Kashmir or Nagaland could be much worse than the present day realty. And the GOI is fully aware of such potential eventuality.
Constitution cannot be truly a constitution without the composite embodiment of constitutional features and provisions. Actually it is the salient features which determine the magnanimity and spirit of the constitution. Likewise a constitution cannot be upheld as supreme unless there are definite inalienable and un-amendable basic structures. Similarly Art 371(A) is not just an integral part but it is an extraordinary part of the composite body called constitution. The Constitution places the Article in a special position with the introductory words: “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution…” This clearly indicates that the Article falls outside the normal purview of the Constitution or the Parliament. Therefore, the question whether the Constitution is supreme and the Article is subordinate cannot be concluded as it is without argument. Indeed Parliament may have all the numerical strength to amend any amendable constitutional provision but (i) Parliament may not have the political strength to amend some special provisions and (ii) Parliament cannot amend what the Constitution do not allow. In layman’s term or for the Nagas at least of Nagaland State, Art 371(A) itself symbolizes the Constitution or a mini-Constitution for no other reason than the fact that without this specific Article the Constitution of India is meaningless to them. Also for reasons guaranteed in the Constitution, without our prior approval Parliament cannot impose its will nor can the ordinary constitutional process prevail upon our protected rights. The fact that Parliament or Constitution cannot infringe our protected rights without our prior consent sufficiently confirms equal supremacy of Art 371(A) vis-à-vis the Constitution.
Nevertheless, it is true if, on the pretext of asserting our constitutional rights and our constitutional status we intentionally or inadvertently overstep beyond the permissible line drawn by the Constitution or provided in the given Article, our irrational behaviour or act can be challenged as unconstitutional and non-constitutional as well. And certainly we cannot apply unconstitutional or non-constitutional measure to assert the constitutional rights and constitutional status on the pretext whatsoever, that they are being disputed or denied. In other words, for constitution related matter the same matter should be handled constitutionally. Given this fact, the supremacy of Art 371(A) has to be interpreted in the context of the constitution; its supremacy is only in relation to the constitution and it cannot possibly have any legitimacy outside the paradigm of the constitution.
