Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 8 April 2024

4-Yr Degree, Silent on PSUs

CONG ON CAUTIOUS PATH

By Shivaji Sarkar 

The Indian National Congress has come out with a manifesto that looks pompous and well-intentioned but less original and more reactive to the present policies.The party is cautious even as it says it may replace the National Education Policy(NEP) but is subdued on proposed novel path to deal with the sliding economy, eloquentlysilent on PSUs and unnecessary 4-year-BA degree modelled on the highly expensive US model. 

It notes overall dissatisfaction over NEP but limits it to “will revisit and amend the New Education Policy after consulting with the state governments”. Does it mean the4-year degree course to continue? Its scrapping could have highlighted deep concerns to instil confidence in the youth, each of whom would spend at least Rs 3 lakh a year extra and be delayed for job market. Overall, from unheard of four-year nursery – to new four-year-degree – a child loses four years during education. Congress could have highlighted the unnecessary fourth year at the degree level to cost two crore aspirants’additional expenditure of Rs 6 lakh crore a year? If four years loss over the period are calculated in financial and social terms, it’s unfathomable.  

The manifesto avoids a word on the PSUs. The Nav Sankalp Economic Policy resets the button with “3-Ws” - work, wealth and welfare for reviewing GST - hope of most small traders, promote manufacturing and make jobs the cornerstone, rejecting jobless growth. A new orientation since 1991. Its definition of work is the same as in the present - self-employment and starting business. 

It highlights that Reserve Bank of India’s finds 60 percent of central projects stalled causing a cost escalation of Rs 5 lakh crore. It could have said these would be scrapped. On the labour laws too, the party is evasive on undoing the amendments denying them the rights. 

On corruption, it says, “will probe demonetisation, Rafale deal, Pegasus spyware, the Electoral Bonds scheme and bring to law those who made illegal gains through these measures”. Rahul Gandhi at the launch said the electoral bonds showed that political funding to the BJP was through “extortion and putting pressure” on the corporates. A welcome move. It has also promised reversal of Agnipath army recruitment. In most such Opposition promises, it was observed that once in government, the issues are shelved and some may even say these were “jumlas” as manifestos have turned out.Some probes have been mere witch hunting. In December 2013, the GST was stalled terming it anti-people but once in power, those who stalled hurriedly enacted it at the world’s highest rates. 

The 1971 Congress manifesto is remembered to the day for its classic “Garibi Hatao” (remove poverty) slogan. The slogan “five Nyaya” (five justices) may be a good idea but is not inspiring. It calls for five pillars of justice– Justice for Youth, Justice for Women’, Justice for Farmers, Justice for Workers, and Justice for Shareholders. What is so great about it if it has to counter mumkin hai(it’s possible)! 

The convenor P Chidambaram has been criticising government performances in his newspaper columns and even challenged the new statistics. It does not reflect in his document.It even does not question the figures of 3-trillion economy, which has a high repayment of Rs 10 lakh crore and reduces Rs 47 lakh crore 2024-25 budget to Rs 37 lakh crore. The 7 percent growth figures are being questioned by the World Bank. 

The communication could have been sharper. It could have highlighted the weaker consumer sentiments than five years back as RBI’s Consumer Confidence Survey denotes. In 2024, fewer people report improvement in employment of income situation.The middle class is promised stable income-tax. It does not promise that it would be at the level of 22 percent corporate taxes. 

To combat unemployment, Congress has guaranteed a one-year apprenticeship with a private or a public sector company to every diploma holder or college graduate below the age of 25 years. The wages of workers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act will also be increased to Rs 400 per day – the minimum national wages it announces. It seems to have forgotten that apprenticeship scheme was introduced by Indira Gandhi in 1970s.  Repeated several times. Each time it was a cropper as the private sector never liked it and PSUs were lukewarm. 

Railways are on the path of Air India disaster with dynamic fare aimed at boosting air travel. All metros in the country except Kolkata are running in losses. Manifesto could have harped on it and suggested pocket and eco-friendly solutions like inexpensive elevated trams replacing money guzzlers. 

Caste-based census could help it politically to an extent but that cannot be a road map for creating jobs. It has got into the trap of caste politics. The party is forthright on highlighting the abysmal Manipur situation, a silver lining. 

The manifesto has spoken of high petrol prices,questioned “cess” raj but is silent on atrociously high petrol road cess toll of Rs 32.9 per litre introduced promising to abolish toll gates. The country needs freedom from extortionist toll collections of over Rs 10 lakh crore through cess and toll gates causing high inflation. 

Similarly, it is silent on scrapping illicit law for car/tractor junking and high education fees. These cause enormous wealth loss to farmers and average families. With a bit of empathy, it could have touched millions of hearts. It is a whale of political opportunity to cater to the people. 

It has done well to promise that job applications would not have any fee. The call for opening more Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas and Kasturba Gandhi Girls schools are reassuring. The move to introduce free education up to class ten is appropriate. Would it be so also in private public schools? It has a model in Uttar Pradesh. In 1960s, the Congress government introduced the system of paying teachers’ salaries even for private schools ushering in required changes in the education scenario. That brings the fundamental difference. 

It has decided to review the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and remove the provisions that restrict freedom of speech and expression that violate the right to privacy. It ignores the more draconian Bharat Samhita or other amendments to the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The powers to misuse ED, CBI and other bodies emanate from it. 

Still the promise to have a fearless society may raise hopes. The nation aspires that with these new moves the political discourse would turn for the better.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The States

New Delhi, 6 April 2024

Parting Ways In Kashmir

NC, PDP JOLT TO INDIA BLOC

By Insaf 

INDIA bloc partners in Kashmir part ways. The principal parties in the Valley, the NC and PDP decided to nominate each of their candidates for the three Lok Sabha seats, dashing hopes of the foes truly turning friends. Within 24 hours, former Chief Ministers, Mehbooba Mufti (PDP) and Omar Abdullah (NC) were heard blaming each other of slamming the unity door. After Abdullah was quoted on Tuesday saying PDP was unlikely to contest the polls, Mufti on Wednesday said it was ‘harsh’ and insinuating that her party had become irrelevant and so she had no option but to go alone. However, Abdullah maintains it’s her doing as she doesn’t want a pact even for Assembly polls, (if held in September)! Sadly, this pow-vow impacts not just Opposition bloc, but also Gupkar alliance, demanding restoration of Article 370. Both had earlier spoken of jointly taking on BJP and its ‘secret allies’— perhaps referring to DPAP founder and former Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, who has announced contesting from Anantnag-Rajouri-Poonch seat. Importantly, while the NC has decided to leave the two seats in Jammu region for Congress, PDP is yet to take a call. Will there be a reproachment?

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Delhi’s Good & Bad Luck

The past week has stirred like a pendulum for AAP, ruling dispensation in Delhi. On Monday Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was sent to judicial custody till April 15, on Tuesday MP and close aide Sanjay Singh got bail from Supreme Court, was released from jail after six months on Wednesday and on Thursday, Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking removal of Kejriwal as CM following his arrest saying: “At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest but that is his personal call. If he doesn’t want to do that it is up to him. We are a court of law and have to go by the law. Your remedy doesn’t lie here, it lies elsewhere. You go before the competent forum.” Interestingly, the ED too has different yardsticks in the Delhi excise policy-linked money laundering case. While objecting to bail being granted to Kejriwal, it said his release could hamper the probe but conceded it had no objections if Singh is given bail as well as failed to provide an answer where the money was. On release, a relived Singh gave hope to party cadres “Arvind Kejriwal and our leaders have been put behind bars and I am fully confident that yeh jail ke taale tutenge hamaare saare neta chutenge (the locks of jail will break, and all our leaders will come out)” Many would be praying his words turn out prophetic.

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Odisha Big Switch-Over

Who to vote can be a conundrum for the voter in Odisha! As the State gears up for both Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, the ruling BJD and its main challenger now, the BJP have their leaders switching sides merrily. And to their advantage or say hitting the lottery by instantly winning their new party’s ticket. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has nominated at least seven of the turncoats, about 30% either from BJP or Congress within hours as BJD candidates, of the 20 announced so far for 21 LS seats. Likewise, the BJP has given tickets to three senior leaders of BJD, including six-time MP Bhatruhari Mahtab, who either left or were removed from party or denied tickets. Who will benefit more is the big question. BJP is hoping to turn the tables given it upstaged Congress in 2019 polls and is now encashing on rumblings within BJD. Apparently, Patnaik’s private secretary-turned Cabinet Minister rank VK Pandian has acquired an all-powerful position, upsetting party MLAs and MPs. Will anger spill-over to the electorate? The voter will first need to be alert and tally the candidate with the party and symbol before he presses the EVM button, not to be stumped by the switch-over.

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

WB ‘Safest for Women’?

West Bengal may no longer be able to boast of being ‘the safest state for women’. This, as the Sandeshkhali case of alleged sexual assault and land grabbing in North 24 Parganas district is continuing to be a hot potato in ensuing polls. On Thursday, hearing PILs, Calcutta High Court observed it would be “highly shameful” if even 1% cent of allegations of sexual assault there were found to be true, and WB’s image as ‘safest state for women’ will fall! This after a lawyer had submitted a compilation of 100-odd affidavits of alleged victims of sexual assault other than of violence and land grabbing, among other PILs seeking transfer of case to CBI. State’s Advocate General questioned their conviction rate in cases they were investigating in the state and saying central agencies have ‘lost the trust posed in them.’ But, court was firm: “The entire district administration and ruling dispensation have to owe moral responsibility, 100% responsibility and that ‘if one affidavit is proved right, then statistics falls, public image falls, opinion falls…If it falls and crumbles, you cannot resurrect it.” Wonder if this would bother Didi. Right now, she needs to stop Modi and team from making substantial inroads in her State.

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Soren & 31 Cr Land

Former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren has more to lose than just his kursi (chair). The ED has attached 8.86 acres of land in Ranchi, valued at Rs 31,07,02,480 as per urban residential property rate. This is part of the chargesheet filed against him and four others in the alleged money laundering investigation. Saying that Soren was in ‘possession’ of this asset since 2010-11 in a ‘camouflaged and concealed’ manner, the ED on Thursday requested the court for confiscation of the plot. Recall, Soren was arrested in January and is lodged in Birsa Munda central jail. In its chargesheet, the ED, which says the court has taken cognisance of,  has claimed Soren’s associate, Prasad, a former Jharkhand revenue dept official and custodian of government records, was a member of ‘a syndicate which was involved in acquiring lands by fraudulent means which included tampering with original government registers, falsification of government records and manufacturing fake documents.’ Will the case turn out to be a mega racket of land mafia in the States, as alleged? Time will tell. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The Word

New Delhi, 5 April 2024

The Katchatheevu Island

FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE!

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

A tweet by the Prime Minister has stirred up a hornets’ nest in diplomatic and political circles. On March 31, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted, “Eye opening and startling new facts reveal how Congress callously gave away Katchatheevu Islet to Sri Lanka.” Critics in no time screamed that Modi was trying to score a political point in Tamil Nadu. The state votes for Parliament on 19 April. The Congress and DMK are in alliance. Modi added that Congress government did it in tacit concurrence of DMK patriarch M. Karunanidhi. This incurred sharp reactions from DMK as well as the Congress, and some diplomatic counter from Sri Lanka. 

Scanning the reactions, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, son of M. Karunanidhi tried to take a pot shot against the Prime Minister, “What steps Prime Minister has taken to retrieve the Islet? Karunanidhi had opposed ceding it away.” Stalin’s reaction was countering the Prime Minister as well as appealing to the Tamil sentiments, mainly the fishermen, associated with the Islet. The Congress contends that the Islet was given away as a part of friendly arrangement. Sri Lankan government stated, the sovereignty of the Islet has been settled by the 1974 and 1976 Boundary Agreements. 

The Prime Minister’s tweet rings a bell regardless of accusations of political opportunism.  Under the Congress leadership, India lost quite a bit of territory and strategic advantages, ironically, after the British pulled out of the Indian Sub-Continent. I am referring to about 5000 sq km of territory under Chinese occupation, and in particular, the loss of Tibet, an independent country to the Chinese. The British Administration in India had maintained Tibet as a buffer between China and India. Historians argue that Chou-en-Lai, the Chinese Premier talked Nehru into legitimising Chinese sovereignty over Tibet without any reciprocal concession. Nehru acquiesced in Chinese wish as “he had too much faith and confidence in China.” 

On Katchatheevu, what is the issue? Katchatheevu is a tiny Island consisting of 285 acres in the Palk Straight, a stretch of ocean between India and Sri Lanka. It is 1.6 kms long and 300 meters wide and 33 kms far from the Indian coast, in the North-West of Rameshwaram. Its distance from Jaffna, Sri Lanka is about 62 kms. There is only one structure on this Islet a church built by the British in the 20^th Century and run by pastors from India and Sri Lanka. Both countries stake claim to fishing rights in the waters around Katchatheevu. 

In 1974, Sri Lanka and India signed a Maritime Boundary Agreement which ended the dispute.  India relinquished any claim over the Island. The Agreement affected the rights of Indians in Katchatheevu. Since then, Indian fishermen continued to be arrested by Sri Lankan Naval authorities as India had surrendered fishing rights in the Island. A subsequent pact signed on March 23, 1976 about Gulf of Mannar, the Bay of Bengal and related matters “settled beyond doubt” the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over the Islet. 

In a reply by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama to their Parliament in September 2008, the Minister quotes Article 6 of the 1974 Agreement that says, “By this Article only navigational rights of the vessels of both Sri Lanka and India over each other’s waters have been preserved”. The provisions of Articles 5 and 6 taken together “Do not confer any fishing right on the Indian fishermen or vessels to engage in fishing in Sri Lankan waters”. 

Interestingly, the Minister added Indian fishermen could only have the access to Katchatheevu in order to “dry their nets and catch”. The 1976 Agreement endorsed the position established by the 1974 Agreement. In the 1976 Agreement, “Each party shall respect rights of navigation through the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone”. The Congress argument refers to the exchange of territories around these Agreements. India secured, in return, the exclusive rights of Wadge Bank the waters in the South of Cape Comorin. 

The DMK argument is that Karunanidhi had not consented to the 1976 Agreement which deprived Indian fishermen of their rights to fish around Katchatheevu; he was not in power at that time. But the RTI document reveals the facts to the contrary. As per the minutes of a meeting between India’s Foreign Secretary and then Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi in 1974, Karunanidhi consented to redrawing of India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary that would leave Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka. The Agreement between India and Sri Lanka was signed on June 26-28, 1974, within a week of the meeting between Karunanidhi and the Foreign Secretary on June 19, 1974. 

The DMK’s contention that it was the 1976 Agreement which surrendered the fishing rights in Katchatheevu when Karunanidhi was not in power. This does stand the factual scrutiny as India had already surrendered the fishing rights in 1974 itself, with Karunanidhi on board. It is true that the plight of fishermen in Tamil Nadu has sporadically prompted Tamil politicians to raise the issue of Katchatheevu. In fact, a case was filed by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Ms. Jayalalitha at the Supreme Court of India. Sri Lankan government maintain that any decision given by court outside the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka would not be binding on the Island country. 

Apparently, BJP is attempting to correct some strategic mistakes committed in the past. As said above, giving away Tibet is one such blunder. Taking Kashmir into the United Nations as Indian Army was clearing the Pak-backed tribal invaders is another. Several such lapses have been pointed out by historians. I have referred to quite a few of them in this column. Digging into the debates in the 1960s about Katchatheevu, indicate an indifferent approach adopted by Nehru. As per the available documents, Nehru said that he attached, “no importance at all to Katchatheevu and that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to it". At the same time, the officials of the Foreign Ministry and other experts thought that India had a ‘good legal case to assert claim over Katchatheevu’; an Indian king “continuously and interruptedly” ruled the Island between 1875 and 1948. 

Nehru’s attitude was similar when he harshly commented that ‘not a blade of grass grew in Aksai Chin’. This was during a debate in Rajya Sabha when China was invading, infiltrating and occupying Ladakh (Aksai Chin). In fact, a Member of Parliament, Mahavir Tyagi sarcastically retorted to Nehru pointing to his bald head, “there is no single hair on my head, shall I then cut it off?” In any case, the historians and experts attribute Nehru’s statement as a lame excuse for the failure of not being able to defend Indian Territory against Chinese aggression. 

Of course, Katchatheevu is not the same as any territory occupied or claimed by China. It was given away or relinquished under a peaceful, negotiated agreement. Also, Sri Lanka is a friendly country. One may say Prime Minister is flogging a dead horse; it is a political rhetoric during election time. However, as said, the historic lapses with regard to our territory are painfully reminded through the reference to Katchatheevu. The country has to deal with that pain, by correcting the fault lines and precluding their recurrence. ----INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

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)