KS Nagarajan
Years ago, an English daily in Chennai carried a striking half-page feature on boxing legend Mike Tyson. The headline read: “I Disobeyed My Father.” The caption had little to do with the content of the story, but it instantly grabbed attention—proof of how a few words can jolt a reader into an uncomfortable truth.
Today, that headline captures my own experience—not because I disobeyed anyone, but because I dared to question a system that routinely disobeys its own promises, its rules, and its constitutional obligations. Unlike Tyson, I do not throw 87-kilogram punches. I only ask that the Government of India keep the written promise it made to me—and that the judiciary recognize the constitutional principles meant to protect citizens, especially those who served the nation in uniform.
The Forgotten Fulcrum of the Constitution
Much is written about Fundamental Rights, but seldom about Fundamental Duties—specifically Article 51A(d) and (h), which enjoin every citizen to uphold the sovereignty of India and to cultivate the spirit of inquiry, compassion, and justice. The notes under Article 51A state that while writs cannot enforce these duties, they must guide policy, lawmaking, and reciprocal national obligations.
This is why the Re-Employment of Ex-Servicemen in Central Civil Services and Posts Rules, 1979 exists. Under Rule 8, the Government of India reserves the final right to interpret rules relating to the re-employment of veterans. No other public servant pledges to defend the nation “even at the peril of one’s life” except those in defence services. Yet it is often these very veterans who must fight the longest battles in civilian bureaucracy.
When Article 142 Overrides Constitutional Restraints
Article 142 gives the Supreme Court extraordinary powers “to do complete justice.” But this power is not a license to override Articles 37 and 51A or the policies made under them. Judicial overreach—however noble its intention—cannot be allowed to swallow the spirit of the Constitution. Especially when there are remedies under Articles 136 and 137 for correcting fraudulent submissions or recalling improper orders.
When Article 142 becomes an all-purpose weapon, it risks being more dangerous than a reckless biker breaking traffic rules—not because of the act itself, but because of who commits it and the damage it causes to the constitutional edifice.
A Veteran’s Long Battle Against Broken Promises
My own journey through the judicial maze began with WP 11734/2002. The respondent acknowledged my submissions, corrected their earlier mistakes, and publicly promised to comply with orders passed by higher authorities. Yet they issued no consequential order, forcing me to file Contempt Petition 630/2003.
In response, they reneged on their own recorded promise.
Thus began WP 25571/2003. But here, the judicial process itself faltered. The case was reserved for nearly a year, listed irregularly, and ultimately dismissed—relying on irrelevant counter-affidavits while ignoring the core issue: a government authority refused to honour its own written promise.
The dismissal left me with no choice but to file WA 1384/2008. During the hearing, one judge asked the respondent a crucial question—one they could not answer. That question, surprisingly, found no mention in the final judgment. Instead, the court placed an impossible burden on me: to produce a file that another authority had already declared destroyed. An escape route was created—not for me, the petitioner, but for the respondent who failed to perform a legal obligation.
A Mirage Called Justice?
Advocates may defend their clients regardless of merit—that is their profession. But judges are expected to stand with justice. For a poor, aging litigant, that expectation is not ambition—it is survival. And yet, justice repeatedly slipped away like a mirage.
My young advocates, moved by my condition as a senior citizen and 1971 war veteran, urged me to file an SLP before the Supreme Court without charging a single rupee. But even there, the respondent misled the Court with irrelevant affidavits. My plea—to count my naval service as per the respondent’s own promise—was dismissed as “mercurial.”
Is asking the State to honour its own written word really mercurial?
When Policy Decisions Become Court Casualties
In another unrelated case, the same bench questioned the Government of India’s authority to amend a State policy matter—a domain exclusively within the Executive’s prerogative. Here too, the Court ventured into territory barred by Articles 37 and 51A.
Blanket orders in matters of national policy weaken governance and embolden bureaucratic evasion.
A System Where Grapes Turn Sour
Today, I lack the strength, the means, and the resources to seek a review before a larger bench. Meanwhile, the respondent enjoys the luxury of spending public money to shield its lapses—another example of how white-collar wrongdoers weaponize the State’s resources against whistleblowers.
Perhaps the grapes are indeed sour. Or perhaps the vineyard itself needs cleansing.
Either way, my fight—for dignity, for justice, and for a promise made to a soldier—continues.
