It is a dangerous fallacy that law and judicial orders need not be enforced or complied with because that would lead to outbreak of violence. This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in relation to a movie Ore Oru Gramathile which conveyed the message that the policy of reservation is abused by some people who secure jobs or admissions to educational institutions by wrongful means. The movie’s theme and its presentation was resented by beneficiaries of the reservation policy some of whom threatened to burn cinema houses should the film be screened. The Censor Board cleared the film. The Madras High Court in an incredible judgment banned its exhibition. The Supreme Court promptly reversed the High Court and ruled “If the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted, freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstrations and processions or threats of violence. That would be tantamount to negation of the Rule of Law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. iquest; The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem”.

It is regrettable that the message of this landmark judgment has not yet been absorbed by the authorities. Books and movies continue to be banned not because they are inherently objectionable but owing to apprehensions of violence. The excuse for not enforcing laws and Supreme Court directives is anticipated law and order problems. This attitude is an abject confession of failure of the rule of law and cannot be countenanced.

Monkeys in the court

No one can justly accuse our Supreme Court of being elitist. It is not only Presidents and Vice-Presidents whose elections are challenged and Prime Ministers and ministers charged with corruption or contempt of court who engage the attention of the apex court. The exploited sections of society also receive solicitous care from the court. Considerable time is spent on applications by the wife for increase in alimony and transfer of matrimonial petitions from one court to another. In one case, the court undertook the exercise of determining the quantity of food and its caloric content that should be supplied to militants holed up in a mosque. What’s wrong? The court is taking human suffering seriously.

Goats, cows, bullocks have also figured in judgments of the court dealing with the constitutionality of legislation banning their slaughter. Monkeys are the recent entrants. The Delhi government is keen on translocating 300 monkeys in Delhi to the forests in Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court issued a directive in this behalf to the MP government. The MP government has in its affidavit pleaded its inability to accept these 300 monkeys as the Madhya Pradesh forests are already overcrowded with 250 monkeys received in 2004. Besides, the ecological balance of the forest is said to have been upset and there has been a decrease in the number of some species of birds owing to these monkeys destroying their nests and consuming their eggs. The aggressive behaviour of these simians who have attacked the local inhabitants had led to serious problems.

What a classic clash of interests this case represents. Birds versus monkeys, humans versus monkeys and inter-state claims and conflicts. One awaits with bated breath adjudication by our Supreme Court of these delicate and far reaching issues.

Maoists in Nepal

The news that an interim government comprising Nepal’s rebel Maoists will be formed is heartening. Maoists have to be brought into the mainstream of politics and have to play their participatory role in Nepal’s democracy. Thereafter there is no scope or excuse for resorting to violence which must unequivocally be abjured by the Maoists. Violence is undoubtedly condemnable but it is fatal shortsightedness to ignore its root causes. The bold experiment in Nepal can be useful in tackling the Naxalite problem which cannot be solved by batons and bullets alone. Naxalites must be drawn into our democratic political system, not branded as terrorists and treated as outcastes. No person or party is a permanent untouchable in politics and in a participatory democracy.