Speaker Meira Kumar disallowed an Opposition-sponsored adjournment motion on spiralling prices of essential food items in Lok Sabha. Though she shared their concern,she refused their plea saying, "Adjournment motion can be attracted only in case of failure of government to perform constitutional and legal duties.This is not the case here." So, the Speaker did not think there was any link between price rise and the government's failure to discharge its constitutional and legal duties.
We all know that governments owe their allegiance only to the Constitution.Article 39 in Part IV of the Constitution titled 'Directive Principles of State Policy' outlines the core constitutional and legal duties of any government, be it the Centre or those in states. It says a government shall direct its policies towards securing all citizens,men and women equally,the right to an adequate means of livelihood; ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;operating of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;workers and children are not abused;citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter vocations unsuited to their age and strength.
Has the government,as is its duty under Article 39, been able to provide all its citizens an adequate means of livelihood. If it has not,then it has made life a burden by not being able to keep prices of food items within reach of those 'aam aadmi' in the 150 districts where the National Advisory Committee headed by Sonia Gandhi proposes to provide cheap ration on the ground that an overwhelming majority are living below the poverty line.
Has the government cracked the whip against black marketeers and hoarders Is it not the constitutional and legal duty of the government to check massive corruption and pilferage in the distribution of cheap ration to poor under the public distribution system (PDS)
There are many issues where citizens have not cornered the government over its constitutional duties.The government,despite caustic strictures from the Supreme Court,has not been able to check the massive illegal migration from Bangladesh.But will we be wrong when we say the government failed to discharge its duties when it allowed certain goons in Mumbai to thrash Biharis terming them as illegal migrants and acted only when strong public opinion forced it to do so
It's the government's primary duty to see that peace and harmony prevails in society.Why then do some riots go on unabated be it in Gujarat or in Delhi Why does it allow khap panchayats to snuff out young lives through medieval diktats Why does it allow illegal structures to come up and regularise it at the cost of law abiding citizens
There are many questions.But all these can wait in the face of spiralling prices pushing away food items from millions of hungry mouths.And no one is asking the government to discharge its constitutional and legal duties by scrupulously following the SC judgment in Maneka Gandhi case [1978 (1) SCC 248] giving wide meaning to the right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The SC had said,"The expression 'life' in Article 21 does not connote mere physical or animal existence.Right to life includes life to live with human dignity."The well meaning judgment of the apex court is not in sync with the ground realities prevailing in those 150 districts,where people survive on roots and have seldom got easy access to the basic necessities of life -- food,shelter and clothing.
Hunger strips the dignity of even the hardiest of men.So,when rising prices make food items dearer,it is the government which has failed to discharge its constitutional and legal duties,none else.
---------------------------------------------------
(source-toi)
No comments:
Post a Comment