By M D Nalapat
The Supreme Court needs to set time limits for disposal of cases.
Some
weeks ago, this columnist and his wife went to a cinema show at a mall
in Gurgaon, whose cafeteria had an excellent chocolate éclair. It was
while consuming this together with a glass of coconut water that the
national anthem was played on screen. It took a few moments before the
éclair and the coconut water could be safely deposited by the side of
the seat, thereby enabling this columnist to rise to attention, guiltily
conscious of the fact that for part of the time that the anthem was
being played, it was not possible to be standing to attention.
Fortunately, there were very few other viewers, and none rushed to the
police and the nearest television anchor to declaim against the apparent
“disrespect” (albeit for a few moments) to the anthem as a consequence
of deciding not to stand until after the éclair and coconut water were
safely deposited.
Any normal citizen would instinctively rise to one’s feet whenever
the national anthem got played, and this columnist is no exception.
However, the incident did create some curiosity in his mind as to what
materials the relevant Supreme Court bench relied upon when it made the
playing of the national anthem obligatory at theatres (though not as yet
at school or sports assemblies). There must be weighty reasons based on
objective research for the learned bench to believe that such a move
would significantly boost the patriotism quotient of customers at movie
theatres, and that feelings of patriotism were otherwise not strong
enough, else the highest court in the land would not have given the
emphatic order that it did. However, some may argue that, given the
Republic of India’s age of 71, cannot the citizenry of this country be
trusted upon to be patriotic without recourse to methods such as the
obligatory playing of the national anthem in theatres? That they do not
need their lives and their activities to be micromanaged by the state
and its institutions the way it was during earlier times.
The superiority of civil society over the myrmidons of government is
clear from the fact that cash surpluses come from the private sector and
the deficits from the state sector, barring monopolies such as ONGC or
the RBI. Unfortunately for India’s prospects after 1947, those who took
charge from Lord Louis Mountbatten believed that only the government
could be trusted to do the right thing and never the people. They
continued a governance structure, in which the myriad arms of government
have far more authority and discretion over the lives of citizens than
in any other major democracy. They systematically weakened private
industry and individual initiative and pumped resources into the state
sector, which from that time onwards has been digging deeper and deeper
into public funds for mere survival.
As for the judiciary, that noble and necessary institution has
entered into practically every domain of human life in India, whether
public or private, and routinely gives judgements that have enormous
consequences, sometimes on individuals, but often on much more people,
sometimes even on the entire country, without sharing sufficient detail
about how such conclusions were reached. Of course, among the champions
in a competition between the judiciary and the executive for decisions
that impact the most number of people is probably the 8 November 2016
demonetisation of 86% of the country’s currency, done so as to try and
suck up the 6% of black money that exists in the form of Indian
currency.
The judicial system is at the heart of the Rule of Law. And most of
us have direct evidence of the painfully slow manner in which the legal
system functions. In a particular case familiar to this columnist, the
two children of a deceased individual from Mumbai have spent nearly four
decades in court because a self-proclaimed relative in Haryana filed a
suit to get an equal share of the property left behind by their father.
Thus far, there is no sign of the case getting finally decided, and such
delays seem not the exception, but the norm in all too many cases.
India has a world class judiciary and the Supreme Court needs to set
time limits for disposal of cases. Deadlines given need to take account
of the fact that human life is short, and hence justice needs to be
completed within five years at a maximum. We have a system where
practically all judicial decisions can be re-examined and re-litigated,
and where a plethora of additional cases daily move into the chain,
there to form larger and larger pools of cases yet to be finally—and
this is the operative word, finally—decided.
In another case involving a family, some relatives residing in
Bangalore filed a property suit against another branch of the family
living in Trivandrum, that was finally decided in favour of the latter
by the Supreme Court, but after more than two decades, during which the
individual against whom the case was filed died of old age. More than
two decades later, the same Bangalore-based relatives have now filed
essentially the same case against those Trivandrum-based relatives who
are still alive. Will this too have to wait another 20 years and another
Supreme Court verdict before getting settled? And after that, will
there be a third effort through filing yet another case? Has it become
the reality in India that in practice, cases never get settled except
temporarily? Should not changes in procedures get introduced that ensure
that this no longer be the case, and that an absolute 5-year rule gets
established? When will the Supreme Court act on this?
Fortunately for those who prefer the 21st rather to the 19th century,
the Supreme Court has lately made moves towards re-examining its
earlier dismissal of a High Court verdict decriminalising same sex
relationships between consenting adults. Hopefully, it will also relook
its earlier rejection of a petition to decriminalise defamation. Given
the obvious interest of the executive in ensuring that the powers
enjoyed by British colonial officers remain, only our judiciary has the
power to ensure that the people of India be treated as adults, rather
than juveniles or half-wits. Only “minimum governance” and not “maximum
powers” to officialdom can create the impetus needed for China-style
growth in India. For ensuring such a situation, the hope of citizens is
that the Supreme Court of India will consistently and strongly widen the
zone of individual freedom by pruning that of governmental discretion.
No comments:
Post a Comment