New Delhi, Oct 1 (PTI) The Supreme Court has said that an elected representative bears a heightened responsibility to uphold the authority of law and to conduct himself in a manner that reinforces public confidence in institutions.
The apex court also frowned upon increasing attacks on doctors and other functionaries in the country by those occupying elected offices.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, in its detailed September 28 order on cancellation of bail of Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre and three others who are accused of assaulting and verbally abusing doctors at a municipal hospital in Thane district, said incidents such as the instant one inflicted deleterious effects on peace and tranquillity of the society at large and also disrupted public order.
“We may note that the present incident cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger concern which arises when persons occupying elected office resort to force, intimidation or other extra-legal means in dealing with citizens or public functionaries. Instances of such conduct have been reported from different parts of the country,” it said, while pointing out that another incident was reported from Palghar in Maharashtra involving Shiv Sena leaders after the Mhatre case.
The top court said, while each such incident must necessarily be examined on its own facts and in accordance with law, the recurrence of allegations involving elected representatives assuming, or seeking to assume, authority beyond that conferred by law is a matter which cannot be viewed with indifference.
“An elected office carries with it a corresponding obligation to respect the rule of law and the institutions through which grievances are to be addressed. The authority derived from the electoral mandate cannot be permitted to become a substitute for the authority of law,” it said.
The top court, which directed the Shiv Sena corporator and others to surrender by October 5, emphasised, “No person, however high the office held, can claim supremacy over the discipline of law.”
It said the legitimacy of public authority ultimately rests not upon the power to command but upon the obligation to remain within the bounds of law and serve the nation, and it is this distinction that must remain inviolable in a constitutional democracy.
“In the conspectus of the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that any attempt to intimidate or assault medical professionals, while discharging duties entrusted to them in the interest of public health, cannot be tolerated, much less at the hands of persons holding elected office or for that matter any other person,” it said.
The top court added, “An elected representative, by virtue of the office entrusted to him, bears a heightened responsibility to uphold the authority of law and to conduct himself in a manner that reinforces public confidence in public institutions.”
It said democracy confers power through the ballot, but the exercise of that power remains subject to the discipline of law.
“It is, therefore, a matter of serious concern when persons occupying elected office begin to perceive the mandate of the people as a source of personal authority and unbridled power and, in the process, assume for themselves a position to command, intimidate or even enforce their own will,” the top court underscored.
It added that the constitutional order draws a clear line between the authority conferred by law and the influence exercised by an individual, and an elected representative is entrusted with the responsibility of serving the public and strengthening the institutions through which grievances are addressed and justice is administered.
“He/She cannot supplant those institutions by assuming the role of the police, the administrator or the court. The use of personal influence to secure compliance through fear or intimidation has consequences extending beyond the immediate victim and carries the potential to erode public confidence in the rule of law itself,” it said.
Elaborating further, the bench said the concern assumes greater significance when the persons subjected to such conduct are medical professionals entrusted with the care of the health and well-being of citizens.
“These professionals discharge onerous duties in circumstances which frequently involve vulnerable patients, medical emergencies and decisions requiring instantaneous professional judgment and composure. An atmosphere of fear or insecurity within a healthcare institution can have consequences extending beyond the individual medical officer concerned, by impairing the safe and effective delivery of medical care,” the bench added.
It said those entrusted with protecting the health of others cannot themselves be placed in a position where they are compelled to discharge their professional responsibilities under fear, intimidation or apprehension.
“Resorting to violence against medical professionals by a person occupying such office is, therefore, particularly grave, as it not only imperils the safety and dignity of those entrusted with the care of patients, but also undermines the very responsibility attached to public office to uphold, rather than undermine, the rule of law. The authority conferred by an elected office can never furnish a basis for disregarding the legal restraints that bind every citizen,” it observed. PTI MNL MNL KSS
KSS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.