‘Populist movements tend to violate key dimensions of democratic Constitutionalism’
   Date :20-May-2019

 
Staff Reporter:
 
Justice Sharad Bobde chairs second session of International conference on ‘Constitutional Identity and Universal Values’ 
 
Justice Sharad Bobde of the Supreme Court of India, and a Nagpurian, chaired a session in International conference on ‘Constitutional Identity and Universal Values’ held at St Petersburg in Russia. The conference was held within the framework of 9th St Petersburg International Legal Forum. Justice S A Bobde shared the dais with Valerie Zorkin, Chairman, Constitutional Court of Russian Federation; and Peter Serkov, Deputy Chairman, Supreme Court of Russian Federation.
 
 
The conference was held in three sessions. In the inaugural session of the conference, Valery Zorkin made the opening remarks. Justice S A Bobde chaired the second session, which was devoted to discussion of ‘Judiciary and Modern Populism -- Challenges and Prospects’. His presentation was greatly appreciated by the participant Judges from all over the world. In his speech, Justice Bobde populism was becoming an increasingly common phenomenon through the globe.
 
It posed threat to ‘almost universal liberal constitutional values’ of inclusivity, non-discrimination, secularism etc in the name of nationalism, culture, and tradition. “It also poses imminent threat sometimes to the independence and legal authority of the judiciary and in particular to the power of judicial review,” he said. According to him, populist movements actually tended to violate key dimensions of democratic Constitutionalism such as those of pluralism, inclusiveness etc. Justice Bobde discussed the idea at length quoting Western and Indian judicial experience. In his own words, he dealt with ‘judicial attempts against populism which are practical efforts on the part of judicial wings of the modern States to limit majoritarianism through their interpretative and adjudicatory powers’.
 
He explored the ‘nature of populism’. He argued that though populist forces tended to gain legitimacy through people, their idea of the people was ‘highly problematic’ and ‘in tension with an understanding of democracy’ as an open and inclusive political regime. Also, he said, populism was based on an extreme form of majoritarianism and that populists used their democratic mandates to launch legal reforms that removed the checks on executive power, limited the challenges to their rule, and undermined the crucial accountability institutions of a democratic state. Further, he observed, populist attitude towards the law consisted of a ‘critical, emotional stance’.
 
The Supreme Court judge concluded with observation, “A significant development which has happened of late is the frequent engagement of Indian Supreme court with an idea of ‘Constitutional morality’ in contradistinction to ‘Public morality’.... (in) nobody’s case the Courts must get into nitty-gritty of democratic politics. But there are some constitutional obligations entrusted with the Supreme Court of India which requires it to oversee that democratic negotiations are done within the four corners of the constitution.”