No Organization Is Above the Constitution
No Organization Is Above the
Constitution
The recent exchange between the Karnataka Home Minister and
the RSS has brought into focus a question that every Indian should ask:
Can any organization place itself above the Constitution
simply because it has existed for a hundred years? I recently watched a video
on Facebook in which an RSS representative from Karnataka, while responding to
the Karnataka Home Minister's request for information under the law, reportedly
remarked that the Home Minister was "only two weeks old," whereas the
RSS was a hundred-year-old organization. Unfortunately, I did not save the
video, and I am still searching for it. However, if the statement was
accurately reported, it deserves serious public discussion because it reflects
a dangerous misunderstanding of India's constitutional system.
The office of the Home Minister is not measured by the age of
the individual occupying it.
It is a constitutional office. Whether the minister has been
in office for two weeks, two years, or twenty years is completely irrelevant.
The authority comes not from the individual but from the Constitution of India.
Under the law, the Home Minister is empowered to maintain law and order, ensure
compliance with statutory requirements, and demand information from
organizations whenever the law authorizes such action.
To dismiss that authority by comparing the age of the
office-holder with the age of an organization is to misunderstand how a
constitutional democracy functions. The Constitution does not recognize
seniority based on age. It recognizes authority based on law.
As I have argued in several of my previous articles, I
believe the RSS continues to reflect the mindset of historically privileged
sections of Indian society that exercised enormous social and political
influence under the traditional caste hierarchy for centuries. In my opinion,
that historical mindset still appears in the way some of its representatives
react when questioned by constitutional authorities. There remains an
impression that they consider themselves answerable only to their own
ideological structure rather than to institutions created by the Constitution.
But India no longer operates under the old social order. India
is governed by the Constitution not by the caste system. Every citizen and
every organization stands equal before the law. No organization, regardless of
its history, size, influence, or political connections, is exempt from legal
accountability.
Following repeated terrorist attacks and growing concerns
over national security, India enacted and strengthened numerous laws relating
to organizational accountability, financial transparency, registration, and
disclosure requirements. These laws were created to ensure that organizations
operating within the country remain transparent and accountable whenever
required by law.
Those laws were not written with exceptions.
If Parliament has enacted them, they must apply equally to
everyone.
This is also an area where I believe previous Congress
governments failed. In my view, successive governments had opportunities to
enforce these legal requirements more consistently against the RSS but often
chose political accommodation over constitutional consistency. Some within the
Congress were viewed as sympathetic to the organization, resulting in a
reluctance to pursue the matter aggressively.
History provides an important lesson.
After Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, the Government of India
imposed a ban on the RSS. Independent India's leaders faced a difficult choice
between protecting civil liberties and addressing concerns about organizations
they believed posed risks to public order. Ultimately, India chose to remain a
constitutional democracy that protects freedom of association while also
allowing the State to regulate organizations through laws enacted by
Parliament.
That balance remains important today. Freedom of association
does not mean freedom from accountability. Democracy survives only when every
organization accepts that it operates under the Constitution and not above it.
Whether one supports or opposes the ideology of the RSS is
not the central issue. The real issue is whether constitutional institutions
deserve respect. When a Home Minister exercises powers granted under the
Constitution and existing laws, the proper response is to comply with lawful
requests or challenge them through the courts not to dismiss the office by
comparing its age to that of an organization.
In this matter, I support the Karnataka Home Minister's
insistence that organizations comply with the law. Constitutional offices exist
to protect the rule of law, and public officials should not hesitate to
exercise the authority entrusted to them.
India's democracy does not become stronger when powerful
organizations refuse scrutiny. It becomes stronger when every citizen, every
political party, every religious institution, and every organization accepts
one simple principle: No one is above the Constitution of India.
Comments
Post a Comment