Comment

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent statements at the G20 Summit are extremely unnerving. That the prime minister of the country — a prominent economist — should say inflation is good as it is also a sign of the country’s growth makes the aam aadmi shudder when he compares it with the reality in India today. Even distinguished economists would trash such a statement. While being sound in pure economic theory, the statement fails to take into account social and political factors. While the advantages of growth benefits only a handful of the rich, the effects of inflation affects the poor at large — a fact especially true of India.

There is another angle to this. When the prime minister makes such a statement, he also, inevitably, dictates the state’s economic policy. In this case, a policy that is seemingly capitalist in nature and that would benefit only those with means and money. The statement in a way seemed to indicate that the government is concerned only about the upper- and upper-middle classes and the not the majority remainder suffering largely as a result of inflation. It would come as no surprise then that reform in capital markets and investments in industry are quick to come whereas landmark bills like the Right to Food Bill and the Land Acquisition Bill are yet to see the light of day. Even the Right to Education Act has run into its share of problems.

It is in this light that one must understand the recent remarks by the Kerala high court on price rise. In a PIL filed by former MP PC Thomas on the regular fuel price hikes and seeking their justification, the court noted that only political parties seem to be protesting about the issue while its effects are on the common man. The court indicated that a consumer resistance would lend agreater voice to the issue. The court then called for the balance sheets of the oil companies so that it may examine them and see any justification in the price hikes.

For the critics of judicial activism, the remarks may seem disturbing. They would like to believe that the judiciary shouldn’t interfere in questions of policy, an issue that ought to be clearly in the hands of the executive and legislature. For them, judicial interference in price rise or investigation of corruption cases would be unwarranted. For instance, the formation of a committee to monitor the recovery of crores in black money stashed in Swiss banks was seen as excessive judicial activism by these critics.
Court judgments and remarks also have the ability to ridicule existing government policy and direct the manner in which the state should pursue its goals and policies, in this case socialism. Judgments have the innate ability to address the needs and aspirations of the people — an idea that is gaining increasing importance.

Such a trend isn’t new in any manner and finds support in history. During the 1960s, there were a series of judgments on labour laws and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These judgments gave lengthy discourses on socialism, equality and labour rights — even though not directly related to the cases at hand. It was this ‘rhetoric’ and remarks of Justice Gajendragadkar and his colleagues that set the tone for socialism and welfare of the working classes in government policy in time to come.
In a similar vein, the remarks of the Kerala high court are a befitting retort to the prime minister’s statement on inflation and the finance minister defending the fuel price hike. They show that the government cannot ridicule the masses and formulate policies under the garb of growth that benefit only a few. Rightly then, news channels and print media capitalised on the remarks to counter government officials.

In contemporary times, it may be said that Parliament reached it epoch moment in the last monsoon session. The debates on price rise and the issue of corruption led one to believe in the existence of responsible social democracy. Some also readily believed the speeches that said action was being taken to tackle the issue of inflation such that it doesn’t affect the poor and the aad aadmi. Change, however, seems nowhere in the picture and the situation has only gone from bad to worse.

The author is a lawyer and is currently pursuing his MPhil from the University of Oxford