(Jammu & Kashmir Tableau 26Jan2006 Image Courtesy: PIB)

 

“I am neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim nor any other, except that I am a man, a man with, common sense. As a man of common-sense, after perusing these agreements, what has been perplexing me is this whether Kashmir has acceded to India or India has acceded to Kashmir”.

That was late Surendra Mahanty participating in a Jammu& Kashmir (J&K) debate in Rajya Sabha on 5th August 1952. He described handling of Kashmir as “a story of bungling, a story of muddled-thinking”. Mahanty added: “I will not go into it, nor will I invoke the name of Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, for defending, the indefensible.”

What perplexed Dr. Mahanty baffles more the man in the street as the saga has become extremely messy & bloody since then. The Might and Pride of India has been compromised by successively regimes that lack the political spine to call spade a spade – Kashmir problem is nothing but demographic blackmail of the rest of India.  

And Modi Government has proved that it also lacks the spine by reviving the rotten idea of interlocution. It has used planned peace talks as an excuse to delay in hearing of the case against Article 35A, which is indefensible if we go by Parliament records.

(Image Courtesy: US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives atf.org  )

 

Modi Government is desperate to see India pole-vaults in the ease of doing business (EoDB) sweepstakes.  Take the case of ‘enforcing contracts’. It is one of the 11 indicators on the basis which the World Bank assesses 190 countries for EoDB rankings in its annual Doing Business (DB) Report.

On the ‘enforcement contracts (ECs) parameter, the Government is eying 50-points jump in the forthcoming DB2018 report from 172nd rank in DB2017 report.  A Task Force (TF) chaired by Secretary (Justice) has prepared slew of reforms that appear to fit well into DB methodology.

The problem here is that EC evaluation methodology is very narrow in scope and is standardized for all countries. This approach thus does not reflect the ground reality on EoDB that varies from one nation to another.  

It has thus left out a lot of major irritants in ECs in India as we find a bit later. 

Under ECs, DB report measures the time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through the first-tier court. It also assesses good practices adopted by each country to promote quality and efficiency in the commercial court system.

This quality of judicial processes index reckons good practices across four areas or components. These are: 1) court structure and proceedings, 2) case management, 3) court automation and 4) alternative dispute resolution.

 (PM with CJI- Edited Image Courtesy: PIB)

 

Did Chief Justice of India (CJI) T. S. Thakur breach the Judiciary’s own voluntary code of conduct (CoC) when he ridiculed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day (ID) speech?

The answers to this and certain other prickly questions on judicial accountability lie in the court of CJI. And national enlightenment on these issues can come only if civil society files public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court (SC).  A Big If indeed. 

To best of my knowledge, Vocal NGOs have not yet implored CJI to give verdict on applicability of CoC on him? Has PIL industry petitioned SC to admonish the Executive-Legislature combine to not delay further enactment of judicial accountability law?  

Clarity on this count can also emerge if Modi Government advises the President to seek SC’s opinion on these issues. Another Big If!  

A Layman’s reading of CoC named ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (RVJL) shows that Justice Thakur prima facie violated two of its 16 principles when he derided PM’s speech. These are: 1) “A Judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination.” 2) “Every Judge must, at all times, be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”

Another occasion when CJI deviated from former principle was during the last winter season. Justice Thakur first endorsed #OddEven scheme of Delhi Government outside the Court. He later trashed PIL against the scheme, which rides roughshod over citizens’ right to earn one’s livelihood and physically challenged persons’ right to travel safely. After all, these rights can be interpreted as right to life just as right to fresh air is interpreted to rationalize the scheme.    

Civil Society might well dismiss all this as nitpicking of no consequence in the absence of statutory CoC.