In a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere, it is not unnatural for priorities to get warped. In West Bengal today, the topmost priority is the restoration of the rule of law, of the Constitution and of democratic rights and conventions. Yet all these — absolutely vital for the proper functioning of a democratic polity — are under assault in different ways and in varying scales in West Bengal. Some of the attacks are blatant and obvious, and thus easy to protest against without being misunderstood. But the rightness of the cause should not be allowed to cloud judgment on the aptness or otherwise of the process. In a democracy, the means are as important as the end. To maintain the convergence between the ends and the means, the founding fathers of the Constitution very meticulously laid out the doctrine of separation of powers between the three organs of the State: the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. By working within their designated spheres, the three organs are expected to uphold the structure of democracy. The separation of powers is maintained by a delicate balance. This balance can only be preserved by following a set of unwritten conventions that are true to the spirit of the Constitution. They are conventions because even in as elaborate a document as the Constitution of India it is impossible to take note of every possible eventuality. Changed times produce changing challenges for the practitioners of democracy and the interpreters of the Constitution. This often results in the upsetting of the balance of powers.

The judgment of the Calcutta high court, describing the police firing in Nandigram on March 14, 2007 as “wholly unconstitutional’’, has, in many ways, caught the mood of the times because it criticizes the beleaguered Left Front government. What it does in intent and in substance is to condemn what was an executive decision. Some police officers and government servants present on the spot or aware of events in the area took the decision and gave the order to open fire. Their judgment may have been flawed, but their intentions (on available evidence) were not mala fide. They were trying to do their duty within the executive powers given to them. It is easy, of course, to say post facto that the situation did not warrant a police firing. An error of judgment and a wilful transgression of the Constitution are mistakes of two different orders.

The point being made here is not about the validity or otherwise of the police firing. The argument concerns the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and its importance in a democracy. In a mature and old democracy, the importance of conventions needs no underlining. But in a fledgling one like India, they need to be upheld and their transgressions questioned.