B Sudershan Reddy files the nomination papers before the Returning Officer.
Credit: Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
The Opposition has chosen former Supreme Court judge Justice B Sudershan Reddy as its candidate for the Vice Presidential elections against NDA’s CP Radhakrishnan. Justice Reddy spoke to DH’s Shemin Joy on the contest and other issues.
What does your candidature mean when the numbers are stacked against you?
I have never entertained the idea that this is a losing battle. The electoral college for Vice Presidential elections consist of MPs and not parties. So I have not counted how many parties in the country or in the I.N.D.I.A bloc or outside it. I thought I would appeal to the MPs to consider my candidature on its merit and make a decision.
So, the question on numbers may not be relevant and appropriate. I believe the MPs will think about my track record on my service to the nation.
Some people pit this fight as Tamil versus Telugu, as your opponent NDA candidate CP Radhakrishnan hails from Tamil Nadu. How do you respond to that kind of a narrative?
India, that is Bharat, is one. There is only one citizenship, that is Indian. My rival candidate Radhakrishnan-ji and I are Indians. So why are we talking about Telangana versus Tamil Nadu. This narrative is totally incorrect.
Do you think the circumstances under which this Vice Presidential election is happening is a little bizarre?
You are asking an important question but in an indirect manner. I would not make a comment about what are those circumstances which compelled or which came in the way of (Jagdeep) Dhankhar-ji.
In your statement after filing nominations, you have said that it is not about an individual. What is this electoral battle all about?
I did not set the agenda. It was set by the other side. They started proudly proclaiming that here is this candidate who joined a particular organisation, the RSS, when he was 15, and that this fight is ideological.
Then I responded saying it is true that it is going to be an ideological fight between a liberal constitutional democrat and a quintessential RSS person. That’s how I look at the contest and numbers become irrelevant at such a point.
Home Minister Amit Shah has made an allegation that you support naxalism and that was why you wrote a judgement banning Salwa Judum. How do you respond to that?
It is not my judgement. It is the judgement of the Supreme Court. It is true, I have authored the judgment. There was a brother judge, late Justice SS Nijjar, sitting with me. Not a comma, full stop was added by him.
There was no dissent, not even an addition. Immediately on my retirement, a review petition was filed which was dismissed except with the observation that it will be confined to Chhattisgarh.
That was also not required because Salwa Judum was nowhere else. Whatever its merits may be, there are acceptable standards to review a judgement and make a comment upon that. We don't choose the author of the judgement and make our comments.
I am trained and learned from persons like K Parasaran that a judge should never defend his judgement in public. Judgement should speak for itself. Without defending the judgement, I would make one statement, it is the State alone that can use power. In other words, you cannot outsource your power.
The Supreme Court never said that you don’t fight the naxals, what it said was that you cannot create a group and arm them. The Home Minister may not have gone through the judgement. I do not want to join any issue with him or a debate unless he really wants to have a debate about it.
In your statement, you had referred to institutional integrity. These days there are allegations about capture of institutions, vote theft and all. How do you see that?
The right to vote is not a statutory right that can be given and taken away. It is a guaranteed Constitutional right. In 1928, the All Parties Conference had recommended universal adult suffrage.
The leaders did not want to continue the legacy of colonialism where you could vote only if you were wealthy, educated or allied with the government.
You must know that an exercise of preparing the voters list had started simultaneously when the Constituent Assembly was in session. Remember, those were the days of partition. It was an inclusive exercise. So what is this process of exclusion (in Special Intensive Revision)? We have devised methods and mechanisms to exclude people by insisting on documents, which are not available with the common man. Is it not an infringement of the Constitution?
You have been the Chairman of the Expert Group on Telangana Caste Census. The follow up action is stuck with no assent. What is your take?
The question is how would you formulate your social, economic, political policies unless you have the details of the weaker sections of the society and how do you identify the backward classes? The 43 questions framed by Telangana were really mind boggling.
Isn't it unfortunate that despite doing such a robust exercise the next step hasn't been taken because the legislation is pending? The Centre should also adopt the same question. It will reveal the truth, who is who, what is what, which is that 2, 3, 4, 5% of the population which has garnered, monopolised, political process, economics and social recognition.