‘Genuine movement’

Arun Jaitley

Image via Wikipedia

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN & AJOY ASHIRWAD MAHAPRASHASTA IN THE FRONTLINE

Interview with Arun Jaitley, BJP leader and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha.

THE interventions in the monsoon session of Parliament by Arun Jaitley, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, have been rated as “masterly” by a large number of seasoned Parliament-watchers. During the course of these interventions, which saw him make important observations on the legal and constitutional dimensions of the issues relating to corruption and the Lokpal Bill, the Bharatiya Janata Party leader also adopted the role of an “in-depth political analyst and visionary” who had cast off the limitations of a “narrow, sectarian politician”. In this interview to Frontline, Jaitley elaborated on these interventions and delineated his understanding of the future course of action on issues such as the Lokpal Bill. Excerpts:

Parliament has conceded three points raised by Team Anna on the Lokpal Bill, and the Standing Committee is going to look at the provisions of the Bill. What will be the broad road map on the issue?

Logically, all issues and viewpoints on which parliamentary consensus was built up after the recent debates will be placed before the Standing Committee. The committee should hold extensive public consultations and come out with a report expeditiously so that the final draft, with amendments, can be approved by the Cabinet. Hopefully, the government will introduce the amended Bill in the winter session.

What is the BJP’s position on the Lokpal issue?

There are two underlying principles that should guide the issue. There should be wide scope for government offices coming under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction. It should be a strong, independent Lokpal. The judiciary should have an alternative mechanism, where I prefer the National Judicial Commission. The appointment mechanisms should be completely independent; not excluding the government, but the government should not be able to be dominate or control it. So it should be an institutional mechanism. And it should be a mechanism where we are able to eventually bring in various other institutions. The institution of Lokpal should follow fair procedures. For instance, we should be able to bring in [under its purview] civil servants who work in state instrumentalities.

The only other factor that should be taken into consideration is that the Lokpal Bill should be consistent with constitutional requirements. There are four areas that need to be stressed in this connection. One, when you deal with the judiciary, you have to keep it independent of the executive. Therefore, the mechanism for the judiciary should be separate and not executive-centric.

Two, the principles of federal polity enshrined in the Constitution should not be affected by the Lokpal Bill. The Centre pressing for Lokayuktas in the States can compromise the federal principles of the Constitution. For instance, can the Centre legislate on a law dealing with State bureaucracy? My prima facie view is that with regard to some criminal law procedures, the Centre can, but not with regard to disciplinary and inquiry procedures against the State bureaucracy. The Centre can at best pass an enabling law under Article 252 of the Constitution [Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other State] or a model law, but not a binding law. The States will have to do it. Therefore, the fight against corruption should not compromise the federal principles. I have already spoken about the issue to Team Anna.

Three, in relation to the conduct of the Members of Parliament inside the House, the Bill should be consistent with Article 105 of the Constitution [power and privileges of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees].

Four, in relation to who takes disciplinary action – those who hold a civil post in the Central and State governments have protection under Article 307; that constitutional protection should not be affected.

Now, having covered all these areas, we can say that the Prime Minister should be covered but we can exclude certain functions; functions predominantly in the areas of public order and national security.

There is a suggestion that the functions of intelligence agencies relating to external affairs should not be covered. These are issues that should be fine-tuned by the Standing Committee.

There are other questions, too. Such as whether the entire bureaucracy should be covered and whether it should be entirely under the Lokpal. I think we would like the entire bureaucracy to be accountable. But the government has said there can be a splitting of functions in which the lower bureaucracy can come under the Central Vigilance Commission. There is a third proposal, that the lower bureaucracy can be put under a CVC, which in turn could be monitored by the Lokpal.

Should MPs be covered? Yes, obviously, but what they say inside the House, protected by the privileges of Article 105, should not be covered. These are issues of workability and accountability, which the Standing Committee can look into keeping the major principles in mind.

I have objected to only one point that is found in both the Bills [the Jan Lokpal and the government’s Bill], that is, the bugging of telephones. This can compromise national security. It violates personal liberty. I hope the Standing Committee will consider this.

The idea of attaching property of those charged with corruption has also raised objections.

There are already laws in some States that address this issue. There is a law of 1945 called Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance. The principle behind attaching property is that you cannot profit out of corruption. The court can attach corrupt money, not an executive authority, and use it for national development. The money should not wither away or you should not be able to dispose of the corrupt money. Proceeds of narcotics and smuggling money are invested in the state. Why not in the case of corrupt money? Bihar has brought this law. Other States are following suit.

There is a view that the BJP has spoken in different voices, especially with regard to the Jan Lokpal Bill.

The positions I have enunciated in Parliament are the party’s positions.

 Several votaries of the Jan Lokpal Bill hold the view that the existing anti-corruption laws are completely faulty and inefficient. Do you agree?

I think to say they are completely faulty may not be correct. They are a bit lax, a bit liberal, and capable of misuse. At times the law works, at times it does not. Seeing the enormity of corruption, you do not see so many people punished. A Lokpal may not be able to eliminate corruption but the fear of the Lokpal and of being tried under a fair mechanism may certainly be some kind of a deterrent.

Do you think this movement has created an unprecedented public sensibility?

I think this movement was genuine. No major parties participated. Sympathisers and workers did join it, but in their capacity as citizens. It was genuinely a citizens’ movement. It had a lot of goodwill. Such kind of consciousness is a positive development in India.

Do you subscribe to the view that such protest methods are symbolic of bypassing representative democracy?

I do not think it is fair to say that they were bypassing [representative democracy]. They were not saying they had the power to legislate, and not Parliament. Yes, they did bring pressure on Parliament. But we should treat them as a pressure group. They have the right to campaign and we have an obligation to listen to them. I think the government did not have a game plan. I have spoken to Team Anna at least three times. And on most issues, I have found its stand to be extremely reasonable, and after a little diversion we have converged on the same opinion. On the question of excluding certain functions of the Prime Minister, we are of the same view. Regarding the judiciary, we are of the same opinion also.

 There is a feeling in many quarters that the political class as a whole has lost the moral authority in the context of the movement.

I do not think this is fair. You see, there is a campaign against the political class. The campaign is also against Parliament. I still believe that there are still a large number of good and honest people in various political parties. There are aberrations also. But there is still a space for decency and ethics in politics and that space is being encouraged by such strong public opinion. There is no reason to be cynical. But if you pick up each one of the debates in Parliament in this session, I can tell you some of the debates have been exemplary. For instance, if you see the debate on the day Anna Hazare was arrested, or on the Lokpal Bill, or the impeachment debate, the quality has been very good. The fact is that if private television channels feel that the debates are bringing them TRPs and they cut out to Parliament for speeches, that itself means that people are interested. The stronger the public opinion, the more the viewership of parliamentary speeches, both in the electronic and the print media.

Provocative statements are being made against Parliament. We must not be vindictive in our actions even then. We should not make angry reactions or get provoked. What we do on the issues will be our response to the people. Even without this movement, States such as Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh have brought out Citizens’ Charters. This is a significant response and this is the way it should be.

http://www.frontline.in/stories/20110923281901400.htm

Advertisements

RS passes Sen impeachment motion and questions how judges appoint themselves

Parliament building in New Delhi (Sansad Bhava...

Image via Wikipedia

INDIAN EXPRESS

The Rajya Sabha today passed by an overwhelming majority a motion to impeach Calcutta High Court judge Justice Soumitra Sen on charges of misappropriation of large sums of money and making false statements and misrepresenting facts of that misappropriation. And, in the process, the Elders used the opportunity to pose a question to the higher judiciary: how did somebody like Sen, whose conduct as a lawyer was highly questionable, become a judge in the first place?

That question wasn’t purely rhetorical — speaker after speaker during the four-hour debate got up to question the current collegium system of appointment. And many MPs, cutting across party lines, criticised what they called the growing tendency of the higher judiciary to step into the domain of the executive and the legislature.

While 189 members voted in favour of the motion to impeach the 53-year-old judge, 17 members, including 16 from the BSP, voted against it. The BSP was the only party that came out in support of the judge.

Contacted after the vote, Sen told The Indian Express: “I am extremely disappointed… There is no question of my resigning. I shall fight till the end and explore all legal remedies. I am honest on this issue and will continue to fight my case.”

Not many had bought this case. Continuing from where he left yesterday, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley said that the time had come to revisit the procedure for appointment of judges, strongly favouring a National Judicial Commission (NJC) to replace the collegium system. “The system of judges alone appointing judges must now change. India needs a National Judicial Commission to appoint judges,” Jaitley said. He said the NJC should comprise representatives of the judiciary and executive, as well as prominent citizens.

“Both the pre-1993 and the post-1993 system had several handicaps. The best in this country are not willing to become judges. We have to seriously consider why… We should seriously consider a system which is being debated about setting up a National Judicial Commission… Public interest has to be protected in the matter of appointment of competent judges, in the matter of appointment of judges who are men of integrity, men of scholarship. Not only this, the criteria for appointment today does not exist. Is it today the discretion of the collegium? Collegium is also a system of sharing the spoils. When the High Courts recommend, members of the collegium share the spoils,” he said.

Talking about judicial over-reach, Jaitley said: “Separation of powers requires that every institution works in its own spheres. And if every institution works in its own spheres, it has to lay down the lakshman rekha of its own jurisdiction..And I must candidly confess that this attempt to encroach upon the lakshman rekha is neither coming from governments of the day in the Centre or the States nor is it coming from the Executive or the Legislature. Some serious sidestepping is coming from the judicial institution itself.”

He was also critical of the “increased trend” of the Executive giving jobs to judges after their retirement, saying, “There is a possibility of retirement-eve judgments getting influenced in search of post-retirement jobs…this is a serious threat to judicial independence.” Jaitley also reiterated that Sen had tried to mislead the House by presenting “serious falsehood” about the facts of his case in the House yesterday.

Taking a dig at the recent incidence of the apex court taking an ideological stand, Jaitley said, “Courts cannot say that this is neoliberalism which is creating problems. Courts cannot have an ideology. The only ideology that courts can have is commitment to the rule of law and what law is made by Parliament. Courts cannot tell this to the Government.”

Congress MP E M S Natchiappan said he “felt sorry” the way in which a serving judge had attacked the judiciary, especially a former CJI, in words that were never ever used in Parliament.

Springing a surprise, BSP MP Satish Chandra Mishra, who opposed the motion, said: “The findings have said there has only been diversion of funds and not misappropriation and secondly the finding of a single judge was dismissed by a division bench.” Therefore, he said, it could not be the ground for his removal.

In his address, noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani (BJP) launched a frontal attack on Sen, urging members not to be “misled” by his eloquence, which, he said, had nothing to do with morals. “This man did not deserve to be a judge. Not only should this judge go, other judges who do such things should not remain for even one more day…Let us set a good precedent today so that judges with similar bent of mind get a message that they cannot get away with such things.”

Jethmalani added that by paying the Rs 52 lakh, Justice Sen had bought for himself a reprieve from possible prosecution for criminal breach of trust that carries a prison term of 10 years to life.

CPM’s Sitaram Yechury, who moved the motions against Sen, also favoured setting up of a judicial commission.

D Raja (CPI) stressed the need for a judicial system based on probity and integrity. “A National Judicial Commission is required so that there could be accountability of judges,” he said, adding the nation is agitated over corruption in high places.

Tiruchi Siva (DMK) and Bharatkumar Raut (Shiv Sena) spoke on the need for judicial reforms and changes in the system to appoint judges.

Rajneeti Prasad (RJD) said the appointment system has to change and unless this happens, corruption in judiciary will remain, there will always be some appointments based on personal — rather than professional — considerations.

“When a peon is being appointed, he is interviewed. Set up a judicial commission…This way, good judges will be appointed. Otherwise, only children and kin of judges will become judges,” Prasad asserted.

Kumar Deepak Das (AGP) and H K Dua (Nom) also made similar demands. Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP) said though the judiciary’s fight against corruption was welcome, the trend of judiciary “taking away power by appointing committees — MCD should work like this; this committee should work like this” was wrong. “May be, the authority is not functioning properly, but for that you are not the authority. Let the democratic process, the rule of the law and parliamentary accountability set right the course,” he said.

Immediately after the motion was passed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who remained present in the House and voted, walked up to Yechury and Jaitley and congratulated them on the approval of the motion.

Now that the RS has passed the motion, the matter will go to the Lok Sabha, where, once again, Sen will get an opportunity to present his defence. However, the date when the Lok Sabha will debate the motion, will be decided early next week by the Business Advisory Committee.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rs-passes-sen-impeachment-motion-and-questions-how-judges-appoint-themselves/834089/0

Judges must be beyond all suspicion

Arun Jaitley

Image via Wikipedia

While speaking on the motion for the removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, highlighted that those who occupy high offices must live through the scrutiny of highest standards of probity. Excerpts from his speech:

This is a sad but historic moment in the Indian democracy. We have assembled to decide the fate of a man who decided the fate of others. This political house is here to perform a judicial function. We have heard a detailed presentation in the defence of the Judge sought to be impeached.

The power of removal/impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court is a power which is to be used in the rarest of the rare cases. We invoke this jurisdiction to remove a man and save the dignity of the office, which is paramount.

Judges no longer live in ivory towers. Today, they live in glasshouses where the bar, litigants, public and the media watch them from close proximity. But then we have all to exercise utmost restraint. Judges cannot defend themselves against unfounded allegations. They must neither be summarily tried nor be thrown to the wolves. A Judge, under inquiry, must be candid. He cannot plead only technical defences. He cannot be too clever by half. He cannot invoke a right to silence like an ordinary accused, and shy away from speaking the truth.

In this case, when the Judge under inquiry says that his offence must be proved ‘to the hilt’ or ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’ , he relies on technicalities rather than substance. A Judge is like Caesar’s wife. He must be beyond suspicion. Those who occupy high offices must live through the scrutiny of highest standards of probity. A Judge must be unsuspectable.

Proven misconduct?

Justice Sen is guilty of a continued ‘proven misbehavior’ from his days as a lawyer when he was appointed as a Receiver; and this continued well in to his tenure as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. He never rendered the accounts as directed by the courts both as a lawyer and as Judge. He created encumbrances, by withdrawing monies, which were in his custody as a Receiver of the court. He transferred these monies unauthorizedly to persons not authorized to receive them. He withdrew the monies himself. He transferred the money to another account, which he maintained as a special officer in Calcutta Fans case. Even after his elevation as Judge in 2003, he continued the misappropriation of monies. His case squarely falling under Section 403 of the IPC of temporary misappropriation of monies is a criminal offence. In any case, he continued to retain these monies till 2006. He only returned the monies under the coercive order of the court and not otherwise.

During his tenure as Judge, he put a false defence before the single Judge, the Division Bench, the in-house inquiry committee and the impeachment inquiry that he had invested these monies in a company which went into liquidation. The liquidated company had nothing to do with these monies. The Division Bench judgment is a judgment with consent of all parties. It does not lay down the law. It is a judgment in personam, which is binding only on the parties, and not a judgment in rem, which binds the rest of the world. It does not, in any way, restrain the jurisdiction of this House under Article 217 from examining a case of ‘proven misconduct’.

Justice Soumitra Sen’s conduct as a litigant was unfortunate. He led no evidence. He hardly cross-examined witnesses. He claimed the right of silence. He then misrepresented and put up a false defence. He has been held guilty, both by the in-house committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India, and also by the committee appointed by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha. He is conclusively guilty of an offence. A case of ‘proven misconduct’ is made out against him. A Judge has to lead by example. A Judge cannot rely on technicalities and try to escape the rigours of law. Litigants cannot be Judged by a Judge, who himself is stigmatized. The defence of Justice Sen has thus to be rejected.

Who must appoint the Judges?

The Constitution of India empowers the government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India to appoint Judges. Since the government has the last word, the independence of judiciary was being seriously compromised. The theory of social philosophy of Judges was propounded in the early 1970s in order to provide for a ‘Committed Judiciary‘ in India. The failure of a section of the judiciary during the Emergency and thereafter compelled the revisiting of the debate as to who should have the last word in the appointment of the Judges. The Supreme Court in 1982, by a narrow majority of 4 against 3, maintained the status quo. This enabled further politicization in matters of judicial appointments. In 1993, the balance of power shifted. The advice of the Chief Justice of India became binding upon the government. In 1998, the authority of the Chief Justice of India was diluted to provide for a collegium to appoint Judges.

The quality of judicial appointments, the best available not willing to become Judges, has not improved. Both the earlier systems have not succeeded. Thus the system of Judges alone appointing Judges must now change. India needs a National Judicial Commission to appoint Judges. It must be a combination of members of the judiciary, the executive and citizens’ representatives in public interest who must collectively appoint Judges.

The more important question is what should be the criteria on which Judges should be appointed. Today, Judges perform the Executive function of appointment in an unguided manner. The discretion of the National Judicial Commission, if it is so appointed, or the collegium as at present must now be restricted and regulated by the provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There must be objective criteria introduced with regard to the qualification of persons under consideration, their academic credentials, their experience at the bar, their quality of judgments if they belong to the judicial institutions, details of cases argued, details of judgments reported with regard to the cases the lawyer has argued, the number of juniors trained, academic papers authored, amount of income tax paid, and the reputation and integrity etc. Unless these objective criteria enable a candidate to cross the threshold, he cannot enter the zone of consideration.

At present we have an in-house mechanism, which judges the Judges. It is an extra constitutional mechanism which has not succeeded. The process of impeachment is a near impossibility. The National Judicial Commission thus, in matters of judicial discipline, should be the Judicial Lok Pal.

Threats to judicial independence

The appointment of political activists as Judges at times has compromised the judicial independence. The lack of integrity can be on account of several reasons, which influence the administration of justice. These include judgments delivered because of collateral reasons and prejudices on account of religion, caste or personal reasons.

There is an increased trend of the Executive distributing jobs to Judges post retirement. This has seriously compromised the independence of judiciary. In recent times , the cases of Judges delivering judgments in politically sensitive cases on the eve of retirement and getting jobs the very next day from the Government is on the rise. I believe that no Judge should be entitled to a job after retirement. If the age of retirement is sought to be increased in the case of High Courts, as per the existing Bill pending, the same must be accompanied by a constitutional amendment, which prohibits jobs after retirement. The Judge strength of High Courts can be increased and all judicial tribunals must be manned by serving Judges.

Separation of powers

The separation of powers is one the most valuable principles of the Indian democracy. Separation of powers is infringed upon when the Legislature or the Executive encroach upon the Judiciary’s space or Vice Versa. It is only judicial statesmanship which prevents a confrontation between the institutions. Of late, with the weakening of the political Executive and serious division in the polity, the tendency of the judicial institution to encroach upon the Legislative or Executive space has increased. It has been argued that if the Executive does not perform its job, the Judges have to step in. This is a dangerous argument. By the same logic, if the judiciary does not perform its job, can somebody else step in? The answer is NO in both the situations. Recent comments and pronouncements with regard to whether India should have liberalized economy or regulated economy do not fall within the judicial space. How terror is to be fought is in the Executive domain. What should be the land acquisition policy, is a concern which belongs to the Parliament and the Executive. Whether a Pakistani prisoner in India should be released or exchanged for Indian prisoners in Pakistan, is to be determined by the Government and not the Supreme Court. Whether FDI is needed in the economy or not is an area that belongs to be Executive or Parliament. Unfortunately, recent aberrations in the separation of powers, have all been on account of judicial activism. Activism and restraint are two sides of the same coin. Each institution must respect the Lakshman Rekha.

A breach of trust

Finally Sir, we have before us a case of ‘proven misbehaviour’ by Justice Soumitra Sen. It is not that his misbehaviour is restricted to his tenure as a lawyer. There is a thread of continuity in his ‘proven misbehaviour’. He became a Receiver of a court property. He opened a bank account in his own name. He was a Trustee of somebody else’s fund. He misappropriated the funds. He put them for an alternative use. This he did as a lawyer.

In 2003, when he became a Judge, he continued the misappropriation. He did not ask the court to discharge him. When the court issued him notice, he did not respond. When the court passed strong strictures against him, he under coercive direction of the court returned the money in 2006 along with interest. He mis-representated to the court that he had invested the money in a private company and that the money got lost when the company became insolvent. No part of this money was ever invested in a private company. When the Chief Justice of India called him for an explanation, he moved the Division Bench through his mother and got an order of the single Judge set aside on the basis of concessions made by the advocates. The order shows the members of the bar not in good light. Before the in-house committee, appointed by the CJI, he persisted with his false defence. The committee found him guilty. Before the Parliamentary Committee, he did not volunteer the entire evidence. He resorted to technicalities and silence. He resorted to false defence.

His acts, both as a lawyer and a Judge, had all the ingredients of culpability of breach of trust. He misappropriated the money and he put up a false defence. He was not truthful or candid. This is a case of ‘proven misbehaviour’.

I, therefore, support the address to be made to the President, that Justice Soumitra Sen be removed from office as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. He is undeserving to occupy that office. We recommend the removal of an undeserving man to save the dignity of the office.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110819/edit.htm#6

A supreme misjudgment

Supreme Court of India

Arun Jaitely in THE TEHELKA

Arun Jaitley examines the dangers of the apex court verdict on Chhattisgarh SPOs

THE SUPREME Court of India has quashed the appointment of Special Police Officers (SPOs) by the state of Chhattisgarh as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The effect of the judgment is that the institution of SPOs working in Chhattisgarh and under similar conditions in other parts of the country would cease to operate. SPOs have been appointed in areas where the environment has been threatened by insurgency to perform the functions of the regular police by protecting themselves and their fellow citizens. In Jammu & Kashmir these SPOs constitute village protection committees, which protect the village communities from insurgents. The same mechanism was effectively used in Punjab during the days of insurgency. SPOs is a system where the members of the community are empowered to protect the community. Policemen cannot be present in every house or every village, Areas where there is an apprehension of breach of peace and security due to insurgency requires the appointment of SPOs.

The Police Act of 1861 provides for the appointment of SPOs. Various state police legislations have similar provisions for SPOs to be appointed. The language of the legislations may be different. Those familiar with the ground realities of India would realise the utility of such SPOs. They supplement the normal police administration.

The judgment of the Supreme Court creates a crisis situation. The state would now have to recover arms back from the SPOs. This would itself be a daunting task. Every SPO realises that he would be on the Maoist hit list. He would have only two options left – either to join the Maoists or to continue to retain his arms to protect himself from the Maoists. Having been identified as an SPO without the backing of the state or arms to protect themselves, these SPOs would now be sitting ducks. The battle against the Maoists has been loaded against the Indian state. Maoists are now laying down terms for grant of amnesty to the SPOs. The vacuum created by their removal cannot be filled easily by the local police. The tranquility in the region is going to be disturbed.

A reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court prima facie indicates that the ideology of the author of the judgment has prevailed over constitutionalism. A legitimate question is whether the courts enforce the constitution or do they enforce ideologies. The Maoists are no reformers. Their principal objective is to destroy India’s parliamentary democracy and establish a communist dictatorship. The Maoists wish to dismantle every established democratic institution. If the Maoists were to take over India, the author of the judgment and other well-meaning judges like him would not be manning the Supreme Court. The court would be controlled by ideology and ideological objects of the Maoists. The judgment itself makes for an interesting reading. It is an ideological rationalisation of why the Maoists exist and fight for their causes. It is a denunciation of those who fight the Maoists.

The judgment states, “The state of Chhattisgarh claims that it has a constitutional sanction to perpetrate, indefinitely, a regime of gross violation of human rights in the same manner and by the same mode as done by the Maoists.” It further states that, “Set against the backdrop of resource-rich darkness of the African tropical forests, the brutal ivory trade sought to be expanded by the imperialist-capitalist expansionary policy of European powers, Joseph Conrad describes the grisly, and the macabre states of mind and justifications advanced by men, who secure and wield force without reason, sans humanity, and any sense of balance.” The judgment rationalises Maoist ideology by stating, “People do not take up arms, in an organised fashion, against the might of the state, or against human beings without rhyme or reason. Guided by an instinct for survival, and according to Thomas Hobbes, a fear of lawlessness that is echoed in our conscience, we seek an order. However, when that order comes with the price of dehumanisation, of manifest injustices of all forms perpetrated against the weak, the poor and the deprived, people revolt.”

THIS JUDGMENT challenges India’s fragile national security. Undoubtedly, the judges have entered the political thicket. The court has acquired an ideology. It has chosen a preferred course of economic policy. It has also substituted the wisdom of the executive for its own wisdom of how Maoism is to be tackled. The judgment disregards the basic constitutional feature of separation of powers. The law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all subordinate authorities now is – “Predatory forms of capitalism supported and promoted by the state in direct contravention of constitutional norms and values, often take deep roots around the extractive industries.”

After a detailed ideological discourse, the Court goes on to find faults with the deployment of SPOs even though the Centre and the state legislation specifically empower them. It is held to be violative of Article 14 because youngsters with little education background from amongst the tribals are being given these appointments. It is held to be violative of Article 21, the right to life and liberty, because SPOs have low educational qualification and cannot be expected to understand the danger of fighting Maoism. Hiring such SPOs would endanger their lives and lives of others and therefore encouraging them is violative of Article 21. The payment of honorarium is yet another ground for quashing their appointment.

If the court found the honorarium inadequate it could always direct a more humane honorarium. If the court found that educational qualifications for becoming SPOs were inadequate, it could always direct the state to formulate a policy so that persons with reasonable qualification are appointed as SPOs.

The rationale of the judgment is ideology not constitution. When a court acquires an ideology it decides to frame policy. It dismantles the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. It enters the domain of the legislature and the executive. The rationale in this judgment has upset the constitutional balance. If the ideology of a judge decides constitutionality, the socio-political philosophy of the judge would become relevant. When the social philosophy of a judge is relevant you are back to the Emergency-eve days. There is no greater threat to judicial independence than a judiciary committed to a socio-political ideology and not the Constitution. India’s political process and parliament must seriously consider the consequences of this judgment.

Arun Jaitley is Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha.
ajaitley@sansad.nic.in

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws140711Supreme.asp