By IANS
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Tuesday issued notice to the government on a plea seeking either de-recognition of various political parties which fail to practise socialism or annulment of the electoral law that binds them to swear by socialist principles.
A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan issued notice on the plea by a voluntary organisation, Good Governance India Foundation, which challenged the constitutional validity of the electoral law.
The bench, which also included Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, issued the notice after senior counsel Fali S. Nariman, appearing for the voluntary organisation, pointed out that the “lacunae” of “the law that forces political parties practising diverse political philosophy, including capitalism, to swear hypocritically by socialism.”
Nariman argued that either the Election Commission should derecognise the political parties deviating from the principles of socialism or annul the law that makes them hypocrites.
He said that socialism is primarily a particular political philosophy and forcing all political parties to swear by a single philosophy goes against the concept of parliamentary democracy, which grants them the freedom to choose their own ideology.
Nariman said Section 29(A)(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which binds the political parties to swear by socialism, only ends up making them hypocrites as in realty they might be following capitalism rather than socialism.
He recalled that it was following the 42nd amendment of the constitution in 1976 that the word ‘socialist’ was introduced in its preamble, terming India as a socialist besides secular and democratic republic.
After this amendment, the Representation of the People Act was amended, binding the political parties to swear by socialism, he said. This law also violates the individual’s fundamental right of the freedom of speech, expression and ideas, he added.
Incorporating the word ‘socialist’ in the preamble of the constitution also contrasts with its basic structure, Nariman argued, seeking examination of the legality of the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act as well.
The court, however, decided not to examine the validity of the amendment act, as the same had earlier been examined by a larger constitutional bench.