(I request my DMK friends not to misunderstand my motives in quoting this incident)

Ms J.Jayalalitha is a political leader in the state of Tamil Nadu, India and head of a party called AIADMK. DMK is a party which is their arch political rival. Tamilnadu politics is always a two party contest .

During the period of 1996 to 2001 when DMK was in power, certain cases were filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, against Jayalalitha, alleging corruption and misuse of official position. In one of the cases, a Court passed a judgment upholding the prosecution case but suspending the related sentence.

Before the appeal courts could consider the issue, an election intervened in the state and the Election commission did not allow Jayalalitha to contest the election.

However, during the elections, the people voted Jayalalitha's party to power by an overwhelming majority of legislatures in the state assembly. The verdict was so decisive that it appeared to be a clear mandate against the court verdict.

When the question of swearing in of the Chief Minister came up, the constitutional dilemma of "Whether a person who was disqualified to contest the election, could be elected as the leader of the elected representatives and as head of state.. came for discussion. (As per the law, a person who is not a member of the house can be elected as the leader and he/she should get elected to the assembly within the next six months).

Here again the point is to what extent Law remains a Law if people are not with it? Should the enforcement machinery be pressed to act against the will of the people? or should we compromise to the situation since in a Democracy, the will of the people is final and cannot be ignored without risking a "Revolt".
 

Back