Any semblance of majoritarian tendencies, any clampdown on civil liberties or religious freedom upset a sacred promise made to the ancestors who accepted India as their constitutional Republic, Supreme Court judge Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said on Saturday.
“Majoritarian tendencies, whenever and however they arise, must be questioned against the background of our constitutive promise. Any semblance of authoritarianism, clampdown on civil liberties, sexism, casteism, otherisation on account of religion or region upset a sacred promise that was made to our ancestors who accepted India as their constitutional Republic,” he stated.
“The danger to our freedoms may not only originate from those who are tasked to govern but also originate in the intolerance of persons in society as well. Our nation was forged and united, with a promise of certain commitments and entitlements to each and every citizen - a promise of religious freedom; a promise of equality among persons, irrespective of sex, caste or religion; a promise of fundamental freedoms of speech and movement without undue State interference; and an enduring right to life and personal liberty,” he noted.
Y.V. Chandrachud birth anniversary
Justice Chandrachud was speaking at an event organised to commemorate the 101st birth anniversary of his father and longest serving Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud.
In a word of caution, Justice Chandrachud reminded that the largest Bench of the Supreme Court in its history had held that the power of amendment to the Constitution should not be exercised “to destroy the fundamental character and ethos, that is, the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution”.
Referring to the advent of technology and the role of powerful companies, he observed, “in a globalised and increasingly privatised world, the idea of liberty for some, such as powerful corporations, may not necessarily result in dignity or life for most, especially the marginalised classes and sections of society”.
‘A unique lens’
The counter-majoritarian spirit of the Constitution provided a unique lens, through which the competing interests of technological and scientific progress could be balanced with ensuring benefits to all of humanity, he stressed.
“Artificial intelligence may automate several of our tasks, but may also unwittingly perpetuate pre-existing biases. Any technical solution will have to transplant itself on societal structures which are not always equitable. The technology would have to be moderated to counter-act these structures, which will not happen unless the minds behind them are aware and conscientious citizens,” he added.