JUSTICE CHELAMESHWAR: POPULAR MANDATE DOESN’T MAKE EVERY ACTION OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES RIGHT:

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameshwar has cautioned against the belief that an electoral mandate grants elected representatives the authority to consider all their actions as inherently correct. Speaking at the Government Law College, Ernakulam, on the topic “Clamour for Removal of Secularism & Socialism: Whether Justified,” he stressed that such an attitude is contrary to constitutional principles.

He explained that in India’s democratic framework, the Constitution acts as the ultimate arbiter of governmental powers, and the legal system serves as an umpire between legislative bodies and constitutional validity. As long as the present system is in place, all actors within it must accept its authority. If citizens wish to change or discard the Constitution, they have the democratic means to do so, but until then, its framework must be respected.

Justice Chelameshwar observed that criticism of the Constitution is permissible, and one can campaign for its amendment. He cited the example of the 1967 Golaknath judgment, which initially restricted Parliament’s ability to curtail fundamental rights, and how it was later overturned in 1973 by the Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the basic structure doctrine and limited Parliament’s power to alter the Constitution. This, he noted, demonstrated that constitutional interpretations can evolve through legitimate legal processes.

Reflecting on the nature of political systems, he remarked that no system is perfect, especially in human governance, where the diversity of perspectives is vast. However, he urged that people should continue striving for improvements in the system they believe in.

Recalling the unprecedented January 2018 press conference held by four senior Supreme Court judges to highlight concerns over case allocation, he explained that he acted out of a sense of duty to the citizens, using non-violent means to express his views despite criticism.

Discussing the concepts of secularism and socialism, Justice Chelameshwar pointed out that these words were not part of the Constitution for the first 25–26 years after the Republic’s formation, though their essence was reflected in its provisions. They were formally added during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, but he questioned whether simply inserting words could strengthen the underlying principles if they were already present in the document. He argued that the inclusion or removal of such terms would not alter the fundamental nature of the Constitution, as its preservation ultimately depends on the maturity and commitment of lawmakers, judges, and society as a whole.

On socialism, he noted that the economic reforms of 1991, liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation—had effectively diluted socialist policies without formally removing the term from the Constitution. Regarding secularism, he highlighted India’s religious diversity and history of communal tensions, asserting that constitutions are intended to prevent persecution and ensure peaceful coexistence. Even if the term were removed, the protection of fundamental rights would remain.

Justice Chelameshwar concluded by emphasising that it is up to citizens to decide whether they wish to live in a society that values true secularism, equality, and liberty, urging legal professionals to foster awareness and public discussion on these core democratic values.