|
|
|
|
|
|
Open Forum
Judiciary and Restraint, By Inder Jit, 4 April 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 4
April 2024
Judiciary and Restraint
By Inder Jit
(Released on 21 March 1978)
Everyone
today swears by the independence of the judiciary. Happily, no one talks any
longer of committed judges. However, a question which needs to be asked; are we
doing enough to uphold and strengthen the judiciary and its independence? True,
the Janata Government at the Centre restored last month the well-settled
convention of appointing the senior-most judge as the Chief Justice of India.
The decision to name Mr Justice Chandrachud
as the new Chief Justice was hailed widely and helped to revive popular
faith in New Delhi’s commitment to an independent judiciary. But a great deal
more remains to be done both by the Government and the Opposition parties. Healthy conventions have yet to be established in regard
to the sound concept of judicial aloofness. Likewise, we have still to build up
traditions of Parliamentary restraint vis a vis the judiciary. It is not enough
that the judiciary is independent. It must also be helped to appear
independent.
These
thoughts are prompted by a recent happening in the Rajya Sabha which, alas, has
not attracted deserved attention. On Tuesday last week, Congressmen accused the
Union Government with interference in the independence of the judiciary. They
alleged that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Mr Justice
Chandrasekhar, had been arbitrarily transferred to Karnataka High Court so as
to enable Mr Justice Satish Chandra, brother-in-law of the Union Law Minister,
Mr Shanti Bhushan, to be appointed Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. In
fact, Mr D.N. Dwivedi, the member who raised the issue, asserted that Mr
Justice Chandrasekhar, who had been transferred from Karnataka High Court to
Allahabad High Court during the Emergency without his consent, had not
expressed a desire to go back and was “very happy” in Allahabad. Later members
of the two Congresses, led by Mr Kamlapati Tripathi and Mr Bhola Paswan
Shastri, walked out of the House in protest against “unsatisfactory replies” by
Mr Shanti Bhushan.
What are
the facts? Mr Justice Chandrasekhar did “request” a transfer, according to the
letter which he wrote to the then Chief Justice of India in September last. The
text of the letter was read to the House by Mr Shanti Bhushan who also
explained how it was only fair to have acceded to Mr Justice Chandrasekhar’s
request. Mr Justice Chandrasekhar, it may be recalled, was transferred to
Allahabad as punishment for his independence. He had before him in Bangalore
important habeas corpus petitions involving Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, Mr L.K.
Advani, Mr Madhu Dandwate and Mr Shyam Nandan Mishra. On four occasions at
least he gave orders in favour of the petitioners and the Union Government was
constrained to appeal to the Supreme Court. At one stage, Mr Justice
Chandrasekhar even threatened to hold the then Attorney-General, Mr Niren De,
guilty of contempt, forcing the Centre to fly Mr Advani and two others from New
Delhi back to Bangalore by a special plane. An unwell Mr. Vajpayee was in Bangalore already.
Mr
Justice Satish Chandra, who was appointed a High Court Judge on October 7,
1963, should have become Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on May 9, 1977
in the normal course when Mr Justice K.B. Asthana retired as Chief Justice. But
the transfer of Mr Justice Chandrasekhar to Allahabad during the Emergency blocked
his elevation; Mr Justice Chandrashekhar became a High Court judge on September
20, 1963 and was thus 17 days senior to Mr Justice Satish Chandra. Two days
before Mr Justice Chandrasekhar took over as Chief Justice on May 1977, Mr
Justice Satish Chandra resigned. Fortunately for him, be resigned with
prospective effect from August 1, 1977. (The procedure, I am told, is not unusual
as it allows the judge to take care of his leave etc; Mr Justice H.R. Khanna,
for instance, resigned on January 20, 1977. But the resignation became
effective from March 12, 1977.) On July 15, however, he withdrew his
resignation and sat on the court till July 31. But on August 1 Mr Justice Satish
Chandra’s right to withdraw his resignation was challenged by a lawyer through
a writ petition.
A
five-man bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed on October 28, 1977 the writ
petition by a majority of three judges to two and upheld the contention that
the resignation of a judge become effective as soon as it was submitted. Mr
Justice Satish Chandra was consequently restrained from acting as a judge. But
he and the Union of India, which was impleaded as the appointing authority,
went in appeal to the Supreme Court. On December 8 last, five-man bench of the
Supreme Court, headed by Mr Justice Sarkaria, allowed the appeal by s majority
of four judges to one. Mr Justice Satish Chandra was thereafter allowed to
function as a judge, and his way cleared for appointment as the new Chief
Justice of the Allahabad High Court in view of his position as the senior most
puisne judge. Incidentally, Mr Justice Satish Chandra is senior to 13 Chief Justices of High Courts out of a total of
18. He is also senior to seven of the Supreme Court's thirteen Judges.
Was the
Union Law Minister guilty of nepotism, corruption and “high conspiracy” in the
whole drama as alleged in the Rajya Sabha? A few facts are of interest. First,
Mr Shanti Bhushan could have helped his brother-in-law to become the Chief
Justice even on May 9 last year in case he so desired. Opinion in Now Delhi in
April last favoured early repatriation to their home states of all the judges
transferred during the Emergency without their consent. Second, Mr Justice
Chandrasekhar put in his request for a transfer back to Karnataka High Court in
September -- well before the Allahabad High Court gave its decision on the writ
petition against Mr Justice Satish Chandra; the Supreme Court’s decision came
only on December 8. Third, all matters relating to the case of Mr Justice
Satish Chandra, beginning with his resignation from the High Court and ending
with the recommendation of the UP Chief Minister that he be appointed Chief
Justice, were directly placed before the Prime Minister and were dealt by him,
as Mr. Shanti Shushan candidly told the Rajya Sabha.
The
manner in which the Opposition raised the matter in the Rajya Sabha symbolises
an unhealthy aspect of our parliamentary functioning. Various issues are raised
in the House straightaway and sensation created ignoring time-honoured
practices adopted in the Commons. Initially, Mr Dwivedi and other Congressmen
could have taken advantage of Parliament’s inner lobby and first raised the
matter with Mr Shanti Bhushan informally. In case they were unable to get
satisfaction, they could have then taken up the matter with the Prime Minister.
The sensitive issue should have been brought up in the House only if the Prime
Minister had also failed to give them satisfaction. In the House, too, the
Opposition could have gracefully accepted the facts, once Mr Shanti Bhushan read
out the text of Mr Justice Chandrasekhar’s letter. Indeed, there was a good case
for the Opposition to respond positively to Mr Biju Patnaik’s interjection: “It’s
time to apologise.”
Apart
from parliamentary restraint, we also need to build up a tradition of judicial
aloofness which is necessary if the judiciary is also to appear independent. No
one today can justifiably subscribe fully to the old British dictum that a judge should live like a hermit
and work like a horse. Nevertheless, few can be happy with the manner in which
even some of the highest among our judges have conducted themselves over the
years. I remember a former Chief Justice of India who took enthusiastically to
New Delhi’s diplomatic whirl and was, on occasions, seen to make a beeline for
the bar on arrival. Some years ago, also I saw High Court Chief Justice seeking an introduction to the Union
Home Minister at a wedding reception in New Delhi and, after bending low like a
seasoned darbari, saying: “Sir, I have been waiting for this great privilege
and honour for a long time”. I have also witnessed a Chief Justice of India throw all discretion to the
winds and talk animatedly at a Rashtrapati Bhawan reception in turn to the Law
Minister, the Home Minister and, finally, the former Prime Minister virtually
on the eve of a major judgement by the Supreme Court on a matter vitally
concerning the Union Government.
The standards have continued to fall and
it is not uncommon to find Supreme Court judges go out of their way to
cultivate politicians. Not long ago, a veteran legal luminary was shocked to
find senior Union Ministers as fellow guest at an informal dinner hosted by
Supreme Court judge. Things, of course, virtually touched their low standards
during the Emergency when some judges went out to prove their commitment to
Mrs. Gandhi and her regime. Clearly, the new Chief Justice of India, Mr. Chandrachud, needs to take a good
look at the whole problem and set up new standards and norms of conducts. He
could consult not only some of his predecessors
but also eminent veterans among the legal luminaries. Once such veteran
even objects to the Chief Justice of India attending state banquets every other
day and lining up with Union Ministers to greet the visiting dignitary. “Let
him have a banquet of his own for a visiting Chief Justice only” he says.
Much else will also need to be done to restore the
image and independence of the judiciary, eroded increasingly over the past
thirty years in various ways by an executive which exploited, among other
things, the absence of a ban on the appointment of retired judges to influence
them and become supreme. In a classic case, a Supreme Court judge accepted
Chairmanship of the Law Commission, a body directly subordinate to the Law
Ministry, some months prior to retirement. Incredible as it may seem, he
attended the Supreme Court in the morning and the Commission in the afternoon.
There is thus need on all sides to review the matter and take steps to
strengthen the judiciary as a vital limb of our democracy. Nothing should be
done by anyone which either erodes its independence or unfairly tarnishes its
image. What we are is undoubtedly important. Much more important, however, is
what we appear to be.--- INFA.
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Democracy Vs Autocracy: POLITICAL CHAOS INEVITABLE?, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 3 April 2024 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 3 April 2024
Democracy Vs Autocracy
POLITICAL CHAOS INEVITABLE?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Congress
President Mallikarjun Kharge recently stated that a reign of autocracy and
hooliganism has been unleashed in the country by the ruling dispensation. This
is concern expressed by other Opposition parties who say there’s no semblance
of democracy in the country with the government using the central agencies to
harass political opponents.
The recent
arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and also that of his
counterpart in Jharkhand Hemant Soren are glaring examples of the government’s
ulterior motive. In the case of Kejriwal, apart from Germany, the US demanded a
“fair, transparent and timely legal process”. However, Prime Minister Modi has
said no matter how big the corrupt are, action will be taken against them.
It may
be interesting to note that Aurobindo Parma’s director, P. Sarath Chandra
Reddy, on whose statement Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in the excise
policy-linked money laundering case is himself an accused in the same case and
contributed Rs 59.5 crore to the BJP through electoral bonds before and after
his arrest. It is said that Reddy was used to arrest the AAP convenor, widely perceived
as an upright politician.
The
government, which is riding on a so-called Modi wave, is trying all sorts of
tricks to put obstacles before the Opposition through various measures. Apart
from the arrest, the Congress has been served IT notices demanding Rs 1823
crore, a hammer blow that threatened to deepen the financial crisis ahead of
the general election and prompted the party to accuse the government of ‘tax
terrorism’. This is in addition to the earlier fine of Rs 210 crore imposed on
the party and freezing some of its bank accounts.
On the
basis of available data, Congress Treasurer Ajay Maken pointed out that the
ruling party should have been fined for multiple violations of the norms
applied to the Congress as “the BJP did not give details of 1287 transactions
worth Rs 42 crore in 2018-19; no addresses of the donors were given and
calculated by the same criteria that was applied to us, a demand of Rs 4600
crore should have been raised”.
The laws
on money laundering, sedition, unlawful activities and hurting sentiments of
communities are so vaguely worded that the government can arrest anyone on
flimsy grounds. The government is also trying to prove that the Opposition leaders
are corrupt, obviously indicating that those who belong to the BJP have a clean
image. But will this strategy of the BJP be accepted by the educated
electorate?
This is
reiterated by an article of Yamini Aiyar, who just before her resignation as
chief of the Centre for Policy Research wrote in The Economist (on March
23): “The incumbent, Bhartiya Janata Party government of Narendra Modi is set
to win a third term and surveys show that the prime minister’s personal
popularity is at an all-time high. But his governance, built on aggressive
centralisation, legitimised by a cult of personality and undergirded by an
exclusionary Hindu nationalist ideology, is eroding India’s democracy. If
unchecked, the consequences for the country’s political, economic and social
fabric with grim”.
Incidentally,
the clean image of the ruling party has been negated by the recently released
data on electoral bonds by the State Bank of India. Apart from the fact that
the BJP was the largest beneficiary of electoral bonds, it is significant to
note that over 60 companies that were set up after the announcement of the
electoral bond scheme in early 2017 gave close to Rs 260 crore to political
parties through bonds. Of this, over Rs 100 crore or over 40% went to the BJP
while the BRS was the second largest recipient with Rs 61 crore or about a
fourth of the money. Moreover, it is amply clear that the bonds were given
under pressure and have encouraged a
quid pro quo.
Further,
it has been revealed that several companies bagged huge government contracts
after donating via electoral bonds, which allowed donors and recipients to
remain anonymous, some NGOs alleged. BJP was the biggest beneficiary of EBs
paid by loss-making companies and certain corporate groups. The Association of
Democratic Reforms (ADR), NGO Common Cause and individuals like Prashant
Bhushan and Niti Sethi have alleged that: (i) 16 companies that made no profit
in the preceding three years paid a combined Rs 710 crore through the EBs with
the BJP receiving Rs 460 crore of this amount;(ii)certain companies paid the
BJP a total sum of Rs 1751 crore through EBs and received government contracts
worth Rs 62,000 crore; and (iii)41 group of companies paid the BJP a sum of Rs
2471 crore via the bonds after facing raids from the CBI, ED and income tax
authorities.
The
other side of the picture is that the INDIA alliance has yet to project a
unified picture of its allies with a coherent strategy though Congress leader,
Rahul Gandhi has been harping on valid socio-economic issues, claiming the
government neglect over the years. However, the BJP has conveniently shifted focus
instead on religious issues and Hindu nationalism.
For the
party, the focus was on northern and western states where Hindutva propagation
would win the heart of the masses. Added to this, the consecration of the
Ayodhya Temple fulfilled the ambit of the government’s steady move from a
secular approach to Hindu nationalism, reinforced by the notification of the
recent CAA rules.
The
educated electorate in southern states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and
Telangana may not support the BJP’s strategy of Hindu domination and imposition
of Brahmanical culture in the country. These states are highlighting the social
and economic issues plaguing the country and reaching out to the poor and
neglected sections.
The
burning issues of unemployment and underemployment, food inflation, the
increase in unpaid labour and the disparity between the formal and informal
sector need to be addressed by the Centre and respective state governments. The
‘pro-rich policy’ of the BJP has helped in increasing the wealth of
billionaires by 280% between 2014 and 2022, ten times the growth in the average
national income, as per statistics released by Kharge.
India’s
transformation that has been witnessed in recent years resulted from the order
changing from a liberal democracy to what the opposition terms as an autocracy.
The idea of India is also under transformation – from a secular inclusive State
that glorified diversity in thought, culture and faith to one that is based on
one faith, one culture and a strong nationalism that glorifies the nation
state. Not just the BJP, which is said to be the main villain of the pieced, the
authoritarian tendency is also manifest in the TMC, BRS and some other regional
parties.
Finally,
in a society where power and money are becoming decisive factors in politics,
the controlling manner in which the Centre and most states are governed, and
the rising inequality and dwindling incomes of the bottom 30-35% does not augur
well for the country. If changes don’t take place, social fragmentation,
economic disparity, and chaos is inevitable. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Loktantra Bachao’: ALL TOGETHER, BUT U ….?, By Poonam I Kaushish, 2 April 2024 |
|
|
Political Diary
New Delhi, 2 April 2024
Loktantra Bachao’
ALL TOGETHER, BUT U
….?
By Poonam I Kaushish
Unity in disunity or disunity in
unity? Flummoxed? Certainly, as INDIA bloc rallied together in a Loktantra Bachao show of strength in
Delhi Sunday to play footsie, build an idealogical counter and reconcile
competing ambitions with a single aim: Oust BJP in 2024. 39 Modi’s NDA vs 27 INDIA coalition dynamics have
vaulted to top agenda 2024 with the winner taking all.
The rally saw
Congress’s mother-son Sonia-Rahul, Kharge, NCP’s Pawar, SP’s Akhilesh, RJD’s Tejashwi,
PDP-NC’s Mufti-Abdullah etc vociferously accusing BJP of murdering Constitutional
democracy and Modi’s autocratic rule, but it is a testing time for them, even
as they projected bonhomie and appeared to have found common cause.
Undoubtedly, they have
been delivered a setback by AAP leader and Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal and his
JMM counterpart in Jharkhand Soren’s arrest, but also an opportunity --- to energise
INDIA bloc and give it a larger frame to take to people. The big question: Can and will they influence the political narrative ahead
of elections, even as courts settle
merits of both detentions as numerous cases have been filed against Opposition
leaders by ED and CBI.
Two, can INDIA convince
voters of BJP weaponising investigative agencies along-with Income Tax freezing
Congress’s account and electoral bond revelations into this narrative? Do they
have common issues which will bind them, or are they an inchoate and stumbling
set united only by their antipathy to BJP but working at cross purposes to
protect individual turfs? Already TMC Mamata has accused Congress-CPM of
helping BJP and making clear there is no alliance in West Bengal.
Besides, the groupings
seat-sharing arrangements have been sub-optimal, worse, at ground level there
is no coordination on the campaign itself: messaging and leaders’ campaigning
together in States where they are allies? They have still to frame an agenda of
alternative governance and politics.
Three, how does the
imperative of due process play out amid concerns of the poll process being
vitiated with ED knocking on only Opposition doors, alongside foes-turned-allies
being exonerated by ED-CBI. NCP’s Praful Patel a case in point in the Air India
leasing scam. Can BJP convince the electorate that ED’s action is not political
vendetta as Opposition tom-toms?
Further, tension is
inherent to INDIA bloc as regional Parties have historically been anti-Congress
outfits. In Telangana and Karnataka the Grand Dame has been successful against
regional groups. In contrast, in Tamil Nadu and Bihar it has been forced to play
second fiddle despite protests from State leaders. Ditto in Maharashtra where
both NCP and Shiv Sena (U) though weakened by splits are unlikely to let
Congress dictate terms in seat-sharing.
In Bihar
disappointment, anger and suspicion is rife amongst local leadership as it believes
it has been short-changed. In UP
Samajwadi drove a hard bargain and ensured its interests prevailed vis-à-vis seat distribution. Congress realizes
it needs a leg-up from allies to clock a decent tally in Parliament and squabbles
with INDIA, which is yet to discuss a common minimum programme or joint
campaigns, is poor optics.
Moreover, the grouping
is plagued with contradictions as it has sharply defined regional areas and
consequently many more turf wars. For regional Parties Congress is a useful
ally in polls, but they are careful not to let it revive and become a behemoth
again. An issue which it needs to resolve as it struggles to offer a viable
alternative to BJP.
Importantly, the moot
point is: Even if INDIA bloc gets their voters out, splits anti-BJP votes to
minimum and Kejriwal’s arrest evokes sympathy, can it take on its bête noir?
Modi’s BJP is far better organized, way ahead in poll prep and led by a
determined politician. Whether ED, CBI and IT action passes the smell test is
debatable, but whether these issues have as much voter traction and translate
into votes is the query they need to ask.
Questionably how will INDIA
translate at the ground level as individual candidates are going to contest
only on their Party name and symbol, and INDIA as an acronym would have no
place there. The Constitution does not recognize Parties and Representation of
the People Act also does not identify electoral alliances, pre-poll or
post-poll.
Also, a coalition
cannot just be woven around an anti-Modi theme. It needs a vibrant script. Even
as it underlines ‘inclusive’ in its name, BJP has usurped it by succeeding in
drawing a parallel with politics of appeasement. It will have to find the
language and repertoire that can match BJP’s dexterity, multi-vocality, poll
fighting mean machine and resources with which it shores up its communication
dominance and perceived imagery.
Modi has already
thrown down the gauntlet by refreshing Hindutva, projecting and redefining
nationalism and the country’s self respect. Who will take up cudgels against
BJP beyond rally slogans?
Clearly, in this minefield of
contradictions where strategies are crafted with electoral dividends in mind
forging a path ahead for the Opposition will require foresight, nimbleness and
flexibility. So far it has taken baby steps, if they want to play the game
right INDIA will have to start lengthening their stride. Remember, a weak
Opposition by any name will remain a weak Opposition.
Think. In terms of seats NDA (323)
is far ahead of INDIA (134) but vote shares: NDA’s 42% to INDIA’s 35% make them competitive.
Further, BJP might feel confident of having majority States under its belt with
its partners but it should remember vote shares often don’t transfer perfectly.
Thus, seat-sharing arrangements will be key.
Further, in NDA 22 of 39 Parties
have zero seats in Parliament but convey an important signal to their
respective social groups. In UP BJP is dominant but has Apna Dal and Nishad
Party, not due to their strength but message to non-dominant backward
communities. Modi dubs it “a beautiful
rainbow where no Party is big or small,” signaling a tactical shift and
accommodative NDA? Centralization within the Party has resulted in diminishing
of its State leadership that has returned to haunt.
Certainly, BJP which faces mounting
discomforts of two terms incumbency needs fresh thinking and ideas. The rout in
Karnataka and its failure to make inroads in 5 Southern States which send 130
MPs have made it incumbent to begin its scorecard therein.
Surely, how the
narratives pan out in coming days will have bearing on the poll outcome. To
voters, 27 or 39, numbers don't matter. He’s aware BJP is numero uno with Congress a very distant second. It remains to be
seen if INDIA can bury internal differences and maintain a semblance of unity
and side-step traps like Rahul’s apocalyptic framing of “match fixing” and if
BJP wins and changes the Constitution “poore
desh main aag lagne jaa rahi hai.”
In the ultimate, at stake is whether
INDIA bloc believes it will be provided a level-playing field and whether elections
will be free, fair or foul as it whines BJP has vitiated the atmosphere by
oiling many compliant institutions.
As democratic governance becomes
more complex, NDA and INDIA beyond seat-sharing and ego massaging have to
strike the right balance between being popular and taking care of popular
interest with a long term vision.
Remember, the business of shaping Bharat
is not a matter of arithmetic but of politics. Who will come up trumps? -----
INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Market Fails Jobs: ILO CHANGE NEP, STRATEGIES, By Shivaji Sarkar, 1 April 2024 |
|
|
Economic Highlights
New
Delhi, 1 April, 2024
Market Fails Jobs: ILO
CHANGE NEP, STRATEGIES
By Shivaji Sarkar
As the
country gears up for one of its most interesting elections, the economy
requires significant improvement to address the challenges, as highlighted by
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and official indicators, which
reveal a deteriorating situation concerning jobs and official stats of a 31
percent decline in foreign direct investments (FDI).
Ambitious
government projections of $3 to 5 trillion economy and other figures apparently
are not in sync. A rise in the stock market is not supported by strong
indicators else FDI cannot fall so drastically at a critical political
juncture.
The country
is receiving short-term fly-by-night foreign portfolio investments at stock
markets. The FDI indicates the investor confidence in the system. It is
promised but is not actually flowing in. There are UNCTAD studies that show
interest in India, but the actual flow has usually been weak. India’s
inequality is attracting attention of world powers.
The
Inequality Report 2022 brought out by Institute of Competitiveness on the basis
of Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2019-20 finds that monthly salary of Rs
25,000 puts a person among the top wages earned. It is interpreted as a
challenge to securing development with dignity to all and actual growth.
The ILO
report is vocal about the employment challenge that cannot be left to the
markets alone. Production in manufacturing is becoming capital intensive. Without
high manufacturing growth, employment generation might continue to disappoint.
Is it for that reason the government investing in the construction and real
estate? It is internationally accepted that about two-thirds of infra
investments are frittered away in various kinds of cuts. Be it Southeast Asia
or any other region, infra investments have resulted in severe meltdowns.
India’s
youth employment profile suggests country passing through a difficult phase.
Share of youth who are not in employment, education or training has averaged
29.2 percent between 2010 and 2019, the highest in the subcontinent. There is
high proportion of unemployed educated youth even as industry complains of a
shortage of skilled jobs.
The
report emphasises on the broken link between education and employment. “A large
proportion of highly educated young men and women, including the technically
educated, are overqualified for the job they have”. It is a reflection on the
education system and the New Education Policy (NEP) that stress on an extended
four-year-undergraduate degree course and high qualifications of PhD. This is a
common phenomenon across the country as youth with such unusually high
qualifications pine for blue-collar public sector jobs in the hope of job
security. About 3700 PhDs applied for the post of a peon in Uttar Pradesh
police where class 5 was the eligibility criterion.
It's an unsavoury
comment on the education system and the private sector, which have thrown even
the basic labour laws to the wind. The ILO report stresses on 1) promoting job
creation; 2) improving employment quality; 3) addressing labour market
inequalities; 4) strengthening skills and active labour market policies; and 5)
bridging the knowledge deficits on labour market patterns and youth employment.
The NEP does not answer these questions.
It flags
the challenges of addressing inequalities, improving quality of jobs and fixing
asymmetries in the labour market. A State Bank of India study on women’s
collectives brings out the gains through aspiring lakhpatididis. However,
on income, employment and human capital there is still a distance to cover.
The ILO
report calls for giving primacy to labour intensive manufacturing employment to
absorb the unskilled labour. A comparison with China’s shortfall in
infrastructure funding promises to SE Asia on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
may be a lesson for India, as per study of Syndey’s Lowy Institute. It is a
pointer to the huge gap in funding and long gestation period. Only 35 percent
of infra projects seen through completion. The funding is falling through by
$50 billion. The Lowy report is a caution for India for desisting from
investing in infra projects. Poor quality of constructions of bridges and other
infra, including too many roads in Maharashtra, Gujarat of Bihar are
testimonies for the failures.
Women
are often not preferred for jobs as these entail maternity and child care
benefits. About 53.3 percent of the female workforce was self employed in 2019.
It rose to 62 percent in 2022. Many of them are employed but paid low or no
wages.
The weak
consumption data in the GDP numbers indicate that over the past decade
inflation-adjusted earnings of regular salaried and self-employed persons
declined. Perhaps, it is the post-demonetisation syndrome that devastated the
small and medium entrepreneurs.
An issue
that the reports have not discussed is the marginalisation of the public sector
companies and gradual disinvestment. A fall out is testified by the electoral
bond donations. The Rs 12000 plus crore donations are grim pointers that the
private sector functions on the principles of giving donations and in return
getting back expensive projects.
These
are dependent on the government doles at the cost of PSUs. A real private
sector has not yet emerged in this country. This has been the pattern in the
licence-permit raj as well and continues in era of liberalisation. Why should a
country foster such unethical business model? Much of the failings underlined by
the ILO or PLFS are grim reminders of poor consumption and a failing business
system.
The
nation needs to ponder why it should dip into high debts which has annual
repayment of over Rs 10 lakh crore exponentially squeezing the actual budgetary
allocation to around Rs 37 lakh crore, far away of from $3 trillion target. A
policy review is called for the entire financial system, manufacturing,
employment and New Education Policy.
The
country is on experimentation spree and has yet to stabilise its policies. The high prices are obstructions. Parliament
is unnecessarily busy in making laws or redrafting the old ones. No wonder the
chief economic advisor, the highest think tank, says the government can’t solve
the problem of unemployment. Post poll
all national and regional parties and institutions must come together to
redraft the sustainable growth path and manufacturing policies, including
revival of PSUs for proper quality job creation, a strong ILO suggestion. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
SUPREME COURT GOES WRONG, By Inder Jit, 28 March 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New
Delhi, 28 March 2024
SUPREME COURT GOES WRONG
By Inder Jit
(Released on 13 March 1984)
The
Supreme Court’s judgment on electronic voting has been dismissed widely as of
little consequence. Most people feel it matters little whether they vote by
ballot or through an electronic machine. Yet the verdict deserves greater
attention of the nation than it has received so far. It goes way beyond the
Court’s decision to set aside the election of a Kerala MLA. The judgment has raised a basic issue of vital importance to the provision
of free and fair elections in India. Since free and fair elections are the
bedrock of any democracy worth its name, several questions arise. Who is to
ensure free and fair elections under the Constitution? The Election Commission
or Parliament? Which of the two is the apex body in matters relating to
election? Can the Election Commission ignore Parliament? Or vice versa, can
Parliament ride roughshod over the Election Commission? Whose view should
prevail in the event of a clash of opinion? What was the basic scheme and
approach of the founding fathers of the Constitution?
First
the judgment. A division bench of the Court has held that the Election
Commission’s order directing the casting of ballot by machines was without
jurisdiction according to the law. More important, the court disagreed with the
contention of Mr Ram Jethmalani and Mr Asoke Sen, who appeared for the
respondent and the Election Commission respectively, that the Constitution gave
complete powers to the Commission for the conduct of elections under Article
324. The judges observed that the provisions of the Constitution could never
have intended to make the Commission an apex body in respect of matters
relating to the elections and conferring on it legislative powers ignoring
Parliament altogether. If the Commission was armed with such unlimited and
arbitrary powers, the judges observed, if it ever happens that the person
manning the Commission shares or is wedded to a political havoc or to bring
about a Constitutional crisis, it could set at naught the integrity and
independence of the electoral process, so important to and indispensable in the
democratic system.
The
bench said that such an absolute and uncanalised power given to the Commission
without providing any guidelines would itself destroy the basic structure of
the rule of law, adding “it is manifest such a disastrous consequence could
never have been contemplated by the Constitution makers.” Hence the judges
said: “We construe Article 324 to 329 would reveal that the legislative powers
in respect to matters relating to Parliament or State legislature vest in
Parliament and no other body, and the Commission would come into the picture
only if no provision has been made by Parliament in regard to the elections to
Parliament or the State legislature.” The judges said furthermore: “The power
under Article 324 relating to superintendence, direction and control was
actually vesting of merely all the executive powers and not the legislative
powers.” It was pertinent to indicate that the Kerala High Court, which had
upheld the election of Mr Pillai, “fell into an obvious fallacy by acceptance
of the position that the direction of the Commission was intended to operate in
an uncovered field.”
The founding fathers were anxious to ensure free and fair
elections and therefore, created an independent Election Commission which would
function without fear or favour. Accordingly,
Article 324(1) of the Constitution provides “The superintendence, direction and
control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of,
elections to Parliament and to the legislature of every state and of elections
to the offices of President and Vice President held under this Constitution
shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the
Election Commission)”. However, all this would have been meaningless without
protecting the independence of the Chief Election Commissioner, therefore, the
founding fathers also provided under Section 5 of the same Article that “the
Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like
manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court”. Further, “the
conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to
his disadvantage after his appointment.”
Not many
remember that the founding fathers deliberately and advisedly picked the three
words superintendence, direction and control from Article 14 of the Government
of India Act of 1935. This key article, it needs to be pointed out, was
specially designed to give the Secretary of State absolute power to supervise,
direct and control the functioning of the Governor General of India, who was
authorised even to act “in his discretion” and “exercise his individual
judgment”. In fact, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in 1978 that
the power of the Commission in the superintendence, direction and control is
unfettered and over-riding. Parliament, is no doubt, empowered under Article
327 to legislate or certain aspects of the elections, such as making provision
with respect to elections to legislatures. But the crucial point to remember
here is this: all such legislation is
subject to the absolute power accorded to the Election Commission to conduct a
free and fair poll (italics mine).
In
practice, the three words superintendence, direction and control - also give
the Election Commission two vital far-reaching rights; to virtually legislate
and to be informed. The Chief Election Commissioner is empowered to legislate
through “direction”, implement the legislation through “superintendence” and
interpret the legislation through “control”. Every little detail in regard to
the conduct of elections comes under his overall control, direction and
superintendence through Section (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution which
provides: “The President, or the Governor of a State, shall, when so requested
by the Election Commission, make available to the Election Commission or to a
Regional Commissioner such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the
functions conferred on the Election Commission by clause (1)". Experts tell me that
the word staff does not mean merely officials or clerks of the State. The word
embraces everyone under the umbrella of either the Centre or the State
Government, including the police and the army.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in the
Mohinder Singh Gill case in 1978 that “the
Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive
responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of
elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers,
duties, and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on the
circumstances.” It conceded that “when appropriate laws
are made under Article 327 by Parliament as well as under Article 328 by the
State legislatures, the Commission has to act in conformity with those laws and
the other legal provisions made thereunder.” Nevertheless, it made it clear
that both these articles “are ‘subject to the provisions’ of the Constitution
which include Article 324 and 329.” It added: “since the conduct of all
elections...is vested under Article 324(1) in the Election Commission, the
framers of the Constitution took care leaving scope for exercise of residuary
powers by the Commission in its own right, as a creature of the Constitution,
in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in such
a large democracy as ours.”
Not only
that. The Court further explained: “Every contingency could not be foreseen or
anticipated with precision. That is why there in no hedging in Article 324. The
Commission may be required to cope with some situation which may not be
provided for in the enacted law and the rules. That seems to be the raison d’etre
for the opening clause in Article 327 and 328 which leaves the exercise of
power under Article 324 operative and effective when it is reasonably called for
in a vacuous area.” The Court further held: “Once the appointment is made by
the President, the Election Commission remains insulated from extraneous
influences, and that cannot be achieved unless it has an amplitude of powers in
the conduct of elections of course in accordance with the existing laws. But
where these are absent… he must lawfully exercise his powers independently, in
all matters relating to the conduct of elections, and see that the election
process is completed properly, in a free and fair manner”.
The
basic issue boils down to this: which is the apex body for the superintendence,
direction and control of the elections: Parliament or the Election Commission?
In the case of the Kerala MLA, the Election Commission took the view that it
had the necessary constitutional and statutory powers to go ahead with
electronic voting under Article 324. But the Supreme Court has held that it was
not open to the Commission to do so “at its own sweet will.” In support of its
contention, the Court has argued that the powers of the Commission were “meant
to supplement rather than supplant the law.” It has also stated that the
Commission could not be given “unlimited and arbitrary powers” as this could
have “disastrous consequences” which could “never have been contemplated by the
Constitution makers.” But in taking this stand, the Supreme Court appears to
have overlooked the ultimate check provided by the founding fathers against the
Commission going berserk. Article 324 also provides that the Chief Election
Commissioner can be removed by Parliament in a like manner and on like grounds
as a judge of the Supreme Court.
What
next? We have now before us the judgment of a three-member Division bench of
the Supreme Court comprising Mr Justice Murtaza Fazl Ali, Mr Justice Varadarajan
and Mr Justice R. Misra. We also have the judgment of the five-member
Constitution Bench comprising Mr. Justice M. H. Beg, Mr Justice P.N. Bhagwati,
Mr Justice Krishna Iyer, Mr Justice P.K. Goswami and Mr Justice P.N. Singhal in
the Mohinder Singh Gill case. Obviously, the latest verdict holds the field.
The Union Law Minister, Mr J.N. Kaushal, told the Rajya Sabha on Friday that
the law as now laid down by the Supreme Court's judgment “is unexceptionable.”
But the Opposition and some constitutional experts hold a different view. Some
even describe the judgment as “retrograde and preposterous”. (Criticism of a
judgment is permitted so long as motives are not attributed.) Mr L.K. Advani
suggested that either the Government or the Election Commission should approach
the Supreme Court for a review. This, he said, was necessary to restore independence
of the Election Commission and to ensure free and fair elections. The
suggestion deserves to be accepted since the Supreme Court has gone wrong in
virtually reducing the power of the Election Commission from superintendence,
direction and control of elections to mere superintendence. An issue of
fundamental importance is involved --- INFA.
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 19 - 27 of 5980 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|