(Image Courtesy: PIB)

 

“The tradition of the Bar is never to tell a judge that he is wrong even when he is. A lawyer has to respectfully guide the judge out of his error,” stated the then Law Minister (LM) Ram Jethmalani in his letter dated 20th July 2000 to Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice A.S. Anand. 

Mr. Jethmalani tried to adhere to this tradition as a Cabinet Minister while clarifying that no convention existed for consulting CJI is the matter of appointment of Chairman of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC).

CJI reiterated his contention that consultation was the convention and he considered this issue as “one of principle”. And both the legal luminaries thus let the issue simmer into an unprecedented letters war. 

This duel reflected the growing tension between the Judiciary and the Executive. This case was different from earlier bouts of friction between the Judiciary and the Executive that surfaced periodically right from the Raj days. 

LM-CJI face-off has direct relevance to the latest concern voiced by President Pranab Mukherjee, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and other leaders over unbridled judicial activism. 

Time is now ripe to take the turf war between the Judiciary and Executive-Legislative (JEL) duo from endless public discourse to its dignified resolution. This is a pre-requisite for fulfilling national dream for Acche Din for all. 

Before discussing the way forward, we need to recollect more about LM-CJI face-off to put the issue in perspective. The show-down led Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee into seeking resignation of Mr. Jethmalani. 

(Edited Image Courtesy: PIB)

 

The ruckus over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's observations as to whether public perceptions and five-star activists were driving court verdicts is an instance of dreaded shoot and scoot journalism. It is a classical case of half knowledge in action at certain TV news channels. 

There was nothing new in his comment that kept the Opposition and the mainstream media busy haranguing against PM for almost two days.  Mr. Modi merely paraphrased what different chief justices of India (CJIs), Supreme Court judges, high courts and other legal entities have stated over the years.

Mr. Modi’s predecessor, Dr. Manmohan Singh, had also voiced concern over certain aspects of judicial activism and public interest litigations (PILs). He had also done some plain-speaking on encroachment of the Executive turf by judicial activism in his speeches during his two tenures as Prime Minister. Did Loudmouths cry hoarse over Dr. Singh’s observations that would be elaborated later? 

Even the appellation ‘five star activists’ for foreign funded NGOs is an old hat. Mr. Modi has been using this term for more than a decade. He perhaps spun this label in London while addressing a meeting in London on 18th August 2003. 

Mr. Modi’s observations appear muted compared to what certain legal luminaries have stated boldly, honestly and emphatically to stem the growing rot within the judiciary. PM’s speech should have thus served as agenda for a serious debate on the nexus between judicial-NGO-media activism that has thrived largely due to governance-cum-legislative deficit. 

(Image Courtesy: archivepmo.nic.in)

 

Now that the BJP-Congress spat over the cremation ground and memorial for Dr. Manmohan Singh has subsided, it is time to write another facts-based chapter on him as finance minister (FM). ( https://bit.ly/3WY5LQE).

Dr. Singh would remain eternally as India’s Anmol Ratan (priceless diamond), irrespective of the prospects of his being honoured with Bharat Ratana in the near or distant future. Prime Minister Narendra Modi confessed in Lok Sabha on 25th June 2019 that Dr. Singh deserved Bharat Ratana. 

In his ‘Reply on Motion of Thanks to the President's Address’, Mr. Modi stated: “Dr. Manmohan Singhji should have received Bharat Ratna award after his first term.”

One can presume he meant Dr. Manmohan as FM. Foreign Exchange crunch or balance of payments (BoP) crisis remained India’s chronic ailment till he took reins of the Finance Ministry on 23rd June 1991. 

Dr. Singh resolved this problem that even three popular PMs, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi & Rajiv Gandhi could not solve, even when they held finance portfolio briefly in their respective tenures. 

Same is the story with Mr. Morarji Desai, who served as FM and PM at different points in his political career. All these four leaders shied away from structural reforms even when faced with imminent emptying of foreign exchange reserves.

Unlike Indian polity, multilateral institutions and other entities were quick to recognize & laud Dr. Singh’s success as FM in their documents. The World Bank (WB), for instance, hailed the success of five years of reforms as “economic revolution” in its report dated 8th August 1996.